Hi Eric,
Missed a few things in the last reply.
On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 09:41:32 +0200
Auger Eric <eric.au...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > + intel_pasid_tear_down_entry(iommu, dev,
> > svm->pasid);
> intel_svm_unbind_mm() calls intel_flush_svm_range_dev(svm, sdev, 0,
> -1, 0); Don't we need to flush the (DEV-)IOTLBs as well?
Right, pasid tear down should always include (DEV-)IOTLB flush, I
initially thought it is taken care of by intel_pasid_tear_down_entry().
> > + /* TODO: Drain in flight PRQ for the PASID
> > since it
> > + * may get reused soon, we don't want to
> > + * confuse with its previous life.
> > + * intel_svm_drain_prq(dev, pasid);
> > + */
> > + kfree_rcu(sdev, rcu);
> > +
> > + if (list_empty(&svm->devs)) {
> > + /*
> > + * We do not free the IOASID here
> > in that
> > + * IOMMU driver did not allocate
> > it.
> s/in/as?
I meant to say "in that" as "for the reason that"
> > + * Unlike native SVM, IOASID for
> > guest use was
> > + * allocated prior to the bind
> > call.> + * In any case, if the free
> > call comes before
> > + * the unbind, IOMMU driver will
> > get notified
> > + * and perform cleanup.
> > + */
> > + ioasid_set_data(pasid, NULL);
> > + kfree(svm);
> > + }
> nit: you may use intel_svm_free_if_empty()
True, but I meant to insert ioasid_notifier under the list_empty
condition in the following ioasid patch.
Thanks,
Jacob
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
