Re: [PATCH 3/8] iommufd: Support attach/replace hwpt per pasid

[Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@intel.com>]

On 2024/1/18 21:38, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 05:28:01PM +0800, Yi Liu wrote:
>> On 2024/1/17 20:56, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 04:24:24PM +0800, Yi Liu wrote:
>>>> Above indeed makes more sense if there can be concurrent attach/replace/detach
>>>> on a single pasid. Just have one doubt should we add lock to protect the
>>>> whole attach/replace/detach paths. In the attach/replace path[1] [2], the
>>>> xarray entry is verified firstly, and then updated after returning from
>>>> iommu attach/replace API. It is uneasy to protect the xarray operations only
>>>> with xa_lock as a detach path can acquire xa_lock right after attach/replace
>>>> path checks the xarray. To avoid it, may need a mutex to protect the whole
>>>> attach/replace/detach path to avoid race. Or maybe the attach/replace path
>>>> should mark the corresponding entry as a special state that can block the
>>>> other path like detach until the attach/replace path update the final hwpt to
>>>> the xarray. Is there such state in xarray?
>>>
>>> If the caller is not allowed to make concurrent attaches/detaches to
>>> the same pasid then you can document that in a comment,
>>
>> yes. I can document it. Otherwise, we may need a mutex for pasid to allow
>> concurrent attaches/detaches.
>>
>>> but it is
>>> still better to use xarray in a self-consistent way.
>>
>> sure. I'll try. At least in the detach path, xarray should be what you've
>> suggested in prior email. Currently in the attach path, the logic is as
>> below. Perhaps I can skip the check on old_hwpt since
>> iommu_attach_device_pasid() should fail if there is an existing domain
>> attached on the pasid. Then the xarray should be more consistent. what
>> about your opinion?
>>
>> 	old_hwpt = xa_load(&idev->pasid_hwpts, pasid);
>> 	if (old_hwpt) {
>> 		/* Attach does not allow overwrite */
>> 		if (old_hwpt == hwpt)
>> 			return NULL;
>> 		else
>> 			return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>> 	}
>>
>> 	rc = iommu_attach_device_pasid(hwpt->domain, idev->dev, pasid);
>> 	if (rc)
>> 		return ERR_PTR(rc);
>>
>> 	refcount_inc(&hwpt->obj.users);
>> 	xa_store(&idev->pasid_hwpts, pasid, hwpt, GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> Use xa_cmpxchg()

sure.

-- 
Regards,
Yi Liu