[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V2 2/6] iommu/arm: Add ability to handle deferred probing request

Hi Oleksandr,

On 8/12/19 1:01 PM, Oleksandr wrote:
On 12.08.19 14:11, Julien Grall wrote:
On 02/08/2019 17:39, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
From: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@xxxxxxxx>

This patch adds minimal required support to General IOMMU framework
to be able to handle a case when IOMMU driver requesting deferred
probing for a device.

In order not to pull Linux's error code (-EPROBE_DEFER) to Xen
we have chosen -EAGAIN to be used for indicating that device
probing is deferred.

This is needed for the upcoming IPMMU driver which may request
deferred probing depending on what device will be probed the first
(there is some dependency between these devices, Root device must be
registered before Cache devices. If not the case, driver will deny
further Cache device probes until Root device is registered).
As we can't guarantee a fixed pre-defined order for the device nodes
in DT, we need to be ready for the situation where devices being
probed in "any" order.

Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@xxxxxxxx>
  xen/common/device_tree.c            |  1 +
  xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/iommu.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
  xen/include/asm-arm/device.h        |  6 +++++-
  xen/include/xen/device_tree.h       |  1 +
  4 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/xen/common/device_tree.c b/xen/common/device_tree.c
index e107c6f..6f37448 100644
--- a/xen/common/device_tree.c
+++ b/xen/common/device_tree.c
@@ -1774,6 +1774,7 @@ static unsigned long __init unflatten_dt_node(const void *fdt,
          /* By default the device is not protected */
          np->is_protected = false;
+        INIT_LIST_HEAD(&np->deferred_probe);

I am not entirely happy to add a new list_head field per node just for the benefits of boot code. Could we re-use domain_list (with a comment in the code and appropriate ASSERT)?

Agree that only boot code uses deferred_probe field. I will consider re-using domain_list. Could you please clarify regarding ASSERT (where to put and what to check).

What I meant is adding an ASSERT to check that np->domain_list is at empty at least before trying to add in the list. This would help to debug any potential issue if we end up to use domain_list earlier in the future. I can't see why it would as iommu is called earlier, but who knows :).

            if ( new_format )
diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/iommu.c b/xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/iommu.c
index 2135233..3195919 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/iommu.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/iommu.c
@@ -20,6 +20,12 @@
  #include <xen/device_tree.h>
  #include <asm/device.h>
+ * Used to keep track of devices for which driver requested deferred probing
+ * (returns -EAGAIN).
+ */
+static LIST_HEAD(deferred_probe_list);

This wants to be in init section as this is only used at boot.

Will do.

  static const struct iommu_ops *iommu_ops;
    const struct iommu_ops *iommu_get_ops(void)
@@ -42,7 +48,7 @@ void __init iommu_set_ops(const struct iommu_ops *ops)
    int __init iommu_hardware_setup(void)
-    struct dt_device_node *np;
+    struct dt_device_node *np, *tmp;
      int rc;
      unsigned int num_iommus = 0;
  @@ -51,6 +57,33 @@ int __init iommu_hardware_setup(void)
          rc = device_init(np, DEVICE_IOMMU, NULL);
          if ( !rc )
+        else if (rc == -EAGAIN)
+            /*
+             * Driver requested deferred probing, so add this device to
+             * the deferred list for further processing.
+             */
+            list_add(&np->deferred_probe, &deferred_probe_list);
+    }
+    /*
+     * Process devices in the deferred list if at least one successfully
+     * probed device is present.
+     */

I think this can turn into an infinite loop if all device in deferred_probe_list still return -EDEFER_PROBE and num_iommus is a non-zero.


A better condition would be to check that at least one IOMMU is added at each loop. If not, then we should bail with an error because it likely means something is buggy.

Sounds reasonable. Will do.

Just to clarify:

>>> A better condition would be to check that at least one IOMMU is added at each loop.

Maybe, not only added (rc == 0), but driver didn't request deferred probe (rc != -EAGAIN).

I think adding an IOMMU is enough. If you return an error other than -EAGAIN here after deferring probing, then you are likely going to fail at the next loop. So better to stop early.

I realize this not what the current code is doing (I know I wrote it ;)). But I am not sure it is sane to continue if only part of the IOMMUs are initialized. Most likely you will see an error much later that may be not trivial to find out.

Imagine you want to passthrough you network card to a guest but the IOMMU initialization failed...


Julien Grall

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.