On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 07:29:36AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Jason Gunthorpe jgg@nvidia.com Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 9:53 PM
On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 02:38:47AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Jason Gunthorpe jgg@nvidia.com Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 4:22 AM
On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 08:01:00AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Jason Gunthorpe jgg@nvidia.com Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2023 8:28 AM
+struct iommufd_hw_pagetable * +iommufd_hw_pagetable_detach(struct iommufd_device *idev) {
- if (!iommufd_hw_pagetable_has_group(hwpt, idev->igroup))
- struct iommufd_hw_pagetable *hwpt = idev->igroup->hwpt;
- lockdep_assert_held(&idev->igroup->lock);
- idev->igroup->devices--;
- if (!idev->igroup->devices) { iommu_detach_group(hwpt->domain, idev->igroup->group);
idev->igroup->hwpt = NULL;hwpt->obj.users should be decremented here instead of leaving it in iommufd_device_detach().
It is like this because eventually we can't call iommufd_object_destroy_user() while holding the locks.
So the lowest function returns the hwpt up the call chain and once everything is unlocked then it calls iommufd_hw_pagetable_put()
but don't we have unbalanced refcnt poke?
Yes, the refcount should be incremented for every attached device
per device or per group?
per device
Now it's igroup tracking attached hwpt and each device holds a reference on the igroup. Then why do we want to further poke the refcnt per attached device?
It simplified some things, so this is how I made v2..
Jason