> From: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 5:57 PM
>
> On 04.08.2020 15:42, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > From: Paul Durrant <pdurr...@amazon.com>
> >
> > At the moment iommu_map() and iommu_unmap() take a page order but
> not a
> > count, whereas iommu_iotlb_flush() takes a count but not a page order.
> > This patch simply makes them consistent with each other.
>
> Why can't we do with just a count, where order gets worked out by
> functions knowing how to / wanting to deal with higher order pages?
Agree. especially the new map/unmap code looks weird when having both
order and count in parameters.
Thanks
Kevin
>
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c
> > @@ -843,7 +843,7 @@ out:
> > need_modify_vtd_table )
> > {
> > if ( iommu_use_hap_pt(d) )
> > - rc = iommu_iotlb_flush(d, _dfn(gfn), (1u << order),
> > + rc = iommu_iotlb_flush(d, _dfn(gfn), (1u << order), 1,
>
> Forgot to drop the "1 << "? (There are then I think two more instances
> further down.)
>
> > --- a/xen/common/memory.c
> > +++ b/xen/common/memory.c
> > @@ -851,12 +851,12 @@ int xenmem_add_to_physmap(struct domain *d,
> struct xen_add_to_physmap *xatp,
> >
> > this_cpu(iommu_dont_flush_iotlb) = 0;
> >
> > - ret = iommu_iotlb_flush(d, _dfn(xatp->idx - done), done,
> > + ret = iommu_iotlb_flush(d, _dfn(xatp->idx - done), 0, done,
>
> Arguments wrong way round? (This risk of inverting their order is
> one of the primary reasons why I think we want just a count.) I'm
> also uncertain about the use of 0 vs PAGE_ORDER_4K here.
>
> > IOMMU_FLUSHF_added |
> > IOMMU_FLUSHF_modified);
> > if ( unlikely(ret) && rc >= 0 )
> > rc = ret;
> >
> > - ret = iommu_iotlb_flush(d, _dfn(xatp->gpfn - done), done,
> > + ret = iommu_iotlb_flush(d, _dfn(xatp->gpfn - done), 0, done,
>
> Same here then.
>
> Jan
