On 2021/5/13 20:02, Lu Baolu wrote:
> On 5/13/21 6:58 PM, Keqian Zhu wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2021/5/12 19:36, Lu Baolu wrote:
>>> Hi keqian,
>>>
>>> On 5/12/21 4:44 PM, Keqian Zhu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2021/5/12 11:20, Lu Baolu wrote:
>>>>> On 5/11/21 3:40 PM, Keqian Zhu wrote:
>>>>>>> For upper layers, before starting page tracking, they check the
>>>>>>> dirty_page_trackable attribution of the domain and start it only it's
>>>>>>> capable. Once the page tracking is switched on the vendor iommu driver
>>>>>>> (or iommu core) should block further device attach/detach operations
>>>>>>> until page tracking is stopped.
>>>>>> But when a domain becomes capable after detaching a device, the upper
>>>>>> layer
>>>>>> still needs to query it and enable dirty log for it...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To make things coordinated, maybe the upper layer can register a
>>>>>> notifier,
>>>>>> when the domain's capability change, the upper layer do not need to
>>>>>> query, instead
>>>>>> they just need to realize a callback, and do their specific policy in
>>>>>> the callback.
>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That might be an option. But why not checking domain's attribution every
>>>>> time a new tracking period is about to start?
>>>> Hi Baolu,
>>>>
>>>> I'll add an attribution in iommu_domain, and the vendor iommu driver will
>>>> update
>>>> the attribution when attach/detach devices.
>>>>
>>>> The attribute should be protected by a lock, so the upper layer shouldn't
>>>> access
>>>> the attribute directly. Then the iommu_domain_support_dirty_log() still
>>>> should be
>>>> retained. Does this design looks good to you?
>>>
>>> Yes, that's what I was thinking of. But I am not sure whether it worth
>>> of a lock here. It seems not to be a valid behavior for upper layer to
>>> attach or detach any device while doing the dirty page tracking.
>> Hi Baolu,
>>
>> Right, if the "detach|attach" interfaces and "dirty tracking" interfaces can
>> be called concurrently,
>> a lock in iommu_domain_support_dirty_log() is still not enough. I will add
>> another note for the dirty
>> tracking interfaces.
>>
>> Do you have other suggestions? I will accelerate the progress, so I plan to
>> send out v5 next week.
>
> No further comments expect below nit:
>
> "iommu_switch_dirty_log: Perform actions to start|stop dirty log tracking"
>
> How about splitting it into
> - iommu_start_dirty_log()
> - iommu_stop_dirty_log()
Yeah, actually this is my original version, and the "switch" style is suggested
by Yi Sun.
Anyway, I think both is OK, and the "switch" style can reduce some code.
Thanks,
Keqian
>
> Not a strong opinion anyway.
>
> Best regards,
> baolu
> .
>
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
