On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 04:21:17PM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
> On 2018/8/15 20:26, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > On 15/08/18 11:23, Zhen Lei wrote:
> >> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
> >> index 1d64710..3f5c236 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
> >> @@ -566,7 +566,7 @@ struct arm_smmu_device {
> >>
> >> int gerr_irq;
> >> int combined_irq;
> >> - atomic_t sync_nr;
> >> + u32 sync_nr;
> >>
> >> unsigned long ias; /* IPA */
> >> unsigned long oas; /* PA */
> >> @@ -775,6 +775,11 @@ static int queue_remove_raw(struct arm_smmu_queue *q,
> >> u64 *ent)
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static inline void arm_smmu_cmdq_sync_set_msidata(u64 *cmd, u32 msidata)
> >
> > If we *are* going to go down this route then I think it would make sense
> > to move the msiaddr and CMDQ_SYNC_0_CS_MSI logic here as well; i.e.
> > arm_smmu_cmdq_build_cmd() always generates a "normal" SEV-based sync
> > command, then calling this guy would convert it to an MSI-based one.
> > As-is, having bits of mutually-dependent data handled across two
> > separate places just seems too messy and error-prone.
>
> Yes, How about create a new function "arm_smmu_cmdq_build_sync_msi_cmd"?
>
> static inline
> void arm_smmu_cmdq_build_sync_msi_cmd(u64 *cmd, struct arm_smmu_cmdq_ent *ent)
> {
> cmd[0] = FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_0_OP, ent->opcode);
> cmd[0] |= FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_SYNC_0_CS, CMDQ_SYNC_0_CS_IRQ);
> cmd[0] |= FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_SYNC_0_MSH, ARM_SMMU_SH_ISH);
> cmd[0] |= FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_SYNC_0_MSIATTR, ARM_SMMU_MEMATTR_OIWB);
> cmd[1] = ent->sync.msiaddr & CMDQ_SYNC_1_MSIADDR_MASK;
> }
None of this seems justified given the numbers from John, so please just do
the simple thing and build the command with the lock held.
Will
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
