On 2020/3/20 12:32, Jacob Pan wrote:
IOTLB flush already included in the PASID tear down process. There is no need to flush again.
It seems that intel_pasid_tear_down_entry() doesn't flush the pasid based device TLB? Best regards, baolu
Cc: Lu Baolu <baolu...@linux.intel.com> Signed-off-by: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun....@linux.intel.com> --- drivers/iommu/intel-svm.c | 6 ++---- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel-svm.c b/drivers/iommu/intel-svm.c index 8f42d717d8d7..1483f1845762 100644 --- a/drivers/iommu/intel-svm.c +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel-svm.c @@ -268,10 +268,9 @@ static void intel_mm_release(struct mmu_notifier *mn, struct mm_struct *mm) * *has* to handle gracefully without affecting other processes. */ rcu_read_lock(); - list_for_each_entry_rcu(sdev, &svm->devs, list) { + list_for_each_entry_rcu(sdev, &svm->devs, list) intel_pasid_tear_down_entry(svm->iommu, sdev->dev, svm->pasid); - intel_flush_svm_range_dev(svm, sdev, 0, -1, 0); - } + rcu_read_unlock();}@@ -731,7 +730,6 @@ int intel_svm_unbind_mm(struct device *dev, int pasid) * large and has to be physically contiguous. So it's * hard to be as defensive as we might like. */ intel_pasid_tear_down_entry(iommu, dev, svm->pasid); - intel_flush_svm_range_dev(svm, sdev, 0, -1, 0); kfree_rcu(sdev, rcu);if (list_empty(&svm->devs)) {
_______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
