Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] iommu/sva: Invalidate KVA range on kernel TLB flush

From: Baolu Lu
Date: Wed Jul 16 2025 - 21:50:00 EST


On 7/16/25 19:57, David Laight wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 17:53:19 +0200
Peter Zijlstra<peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 03:54:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

@@ -132,8 +136,15 @@ struct iommu_sva *iommu_sva_bind_device(struct device *dev, struct mm_struct *mm
if (ret)
goto out_free_domain;
domain->users = 1;
- list_add(&domain->next, &mm->iommu_mm->sva_domains);
+ if (list_empty(&iommu_mm->sva_domains)) {
+ scoped_guard(spinlock_irqsave, &iommu_mms_lock) {
+ if (list_empty(&iommu_sva_mms))
+ static_branch_enable(&iommu_sva_present);
+ list_add(&iommu_mm->mm_list_elm, &iommu_sva_mms);
+ }
+ }
+ list_add(&domain->next, &iommu_mm->sva_domains);
out:
refcount_set(&handle->users, 1);
mutex_unlock(&iommu_sva_lock);
@@ -175,6 +186,15 @@ void iommu_sva_unbind_device(struct iommu_sva *handle)
list_del(&domain->next);
iommu_domain_free(domain);
}
+
+ if (list_empty(&iommu_mm->sva_domains)) {
+ scoped_guard(spinlock_irqsave, &iommu_mms_lock) {
+ list_del(&iommu_mm->mm_list_elm);
+ if (list_empty(&iommu_sva_mms))
+ static_branch_disable(&iommu_sva_present);
+ }
+ }
+
mutex_unlock(&iommu_sva_lock);
kfree(handle);
}
This seems an odd coding style choice; why the extra unneeded
indentation? That is, what's wrong with:

if (list_empty()) {
guard(spinlock_irqsave)(&iommu_mms_lock);
list_del();
if (list_empty()
static_branch_disable();
}
Well, for one, you can't do static_branch_{en,dis}able() from atomic
context...
Aren't they also somewhat expensive - so you really want to use them
for configuration options which pretty much don't change.

Yeah! Fair enough.

Thanks,
baolu