Message ID | 20230310-dma_iommu-v8-0-2347dfbed7af@linux.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | iommu/dma: s390 DMA API conversion and optimized IOTLB flushing | expand |
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 05:07:45PM +0100, Niklas Schnelle wrote: > Hi All, > > This patch series converts s390's PCI support from its platform specific DMA > API implementation in arch/s390/pci/pci_dma.c to the common DMA IOMMU layer. > The conversion itself is done in patches 3-4 with patch 2 providing the final > necessary IOMMU driver improvement to handle s390's special IOTLB flush > out-of-resource indication in virtualized environments. Patches 1-2 may be > applied independently. The conversion itself only touches the s390 IOMMU driver > and s390 arch code moving over remaining functions from the s390 DMA API > implementation. No changes to common code are necessary. It looks like this still hasn't made it upstream as of 6.4-rc1. What's holding this series up?
On Fri, 2023-05-12 at 07:29 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 05:07:45PM +0100, Niklas Schnelle wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > This patch series converts s390's PCI support from its platform specific DMA > > API implementation in arch/s390/pci/pci_dma.c to the common DMA IOMMU layer. > > The conversion itself is done in patches 3-4 with patch 2 providing the final > > necessary IOMMU driver improvement to handle s390's special IOTLB flush > > out-of-resource indication in virtualized environments. Patches 1-2 may be > > applied independently. The conversion itself only touches the s390 IOMMU driver > > and s390 arch code moving over remaining functions from the s390 DMA API > > implementation. No changes to common code are necessary. > > It looks like this still hasn't made it upstream as of 6.4-rc1. What's > holding this series up? > I think with all the IOMMUFD work going on this got starved out of reviewer resources. I didn't have any open todos but I guess there is still some review needed around how the IOMMU driver tells the dma- iommu that it expects IOTLB flushes to be slow requiring a larger single flush queue. There was also a small conflict with commit 49a22aae7d9c ("iommu: Replace device_lock() with group->mutex") that prevented this from applying to current upstream so I've just now sent out a v9 rebased on v6.4-rc2. Thanks, Niklas