[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100602125049.GB11162@8bytes.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 14:50:50 +0200
From: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, Tom Lyon <pugs@...co.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
chrisw@...s-sol.org, hjk@...utronix.de, gregkh@...e.de,
aafabbri@...co.com, scofeldm@...co.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] VFIO driver: Non-privileged user level PCI drivers
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 03:25:11PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 06/02/2010 03:19 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>>
>>> Yes. so you do:
>>> iommu = open
>>> ioctl(dev1, BIND, iommu)
>>> ioctl(dev2, BIND, iommu)
>>> ioctl(dev3, BIND, iommu)
>>> ioctl(dev4, BIND, iommu)
>>>
>>> No need to add a SHARE ioctl.
>>>
>> In my proposal this looks like:
>>
>>
>> dev1 = open();
>> ioctl(dev2, SHARE, dev1);
>> ioctl(dev3, SHARE, dev1);
>> ioctl(dev4, SHARE, dev1);
>>
>> So we actually save an ioctl.
>>
>
> The problem with this is that it is assymetric, dev1 is treated
> differently from dev[234]. It's an unintuitive API.
Its by far more unintuitive that a process needs to explicitly bind a
device to an iommu domain before it can do anything with it. If its
required anyway the binding can happen implicitly. We could allow to do
a nop 'ioctl(dev1, SHARE, dev1)' to remove the asymmetry.
Note that this way of handling userspace iommu mappings is also a lot
simpler for most use-cases outside of KVM. If a developer wants to write
a userspace driver all it needs to do is:
dev = open();
ioctl(dev, MAP, ...);
/* use device with mappings */
close(dev);
Which is much easier than the need to create a domain explicitly.
Joerg
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists