[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210304231633.GP4247@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 19:16:33 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
CC: <cohuck@...hat.com>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <peterx@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 05/10] vfio: Create a vfio_device from vma lookup
On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 02:37:57PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> Therefore unless a bus driver opts-out by replacing vm_private_data, we
> can identify participating vmas by the vm_ops and have flags indicating
> if the vma maps device memory such that vfio_get_device_from_vma()
> should produce a device reference. The vfio IOMMU backends would also
> consume this, ie. if they get a valid vfio_device from the vma, use the
> pfn_base field directly. vfio_vm_ops would wrap the bus driver
> callbacks and provide reference counting on open/close to release this
> object.
> I'm not thrilled with a vfio_device_ops callback plumbed through
> vfio-core to do vma-to-pfn translation, so I thought this might be a
> better alternative. Thanks,
Maybe you could explain why, because I'm looking at this idea and
thinking it looks very complicated compared to a simple driver op
callback?
The implementation of such an op for vfio_pci is one line trivial, why
do we need allocated memory and a entire shim layer instead?
Shim layers are bad.
We still need a driver op of some kind because only the driver can
convert a pg_off into a PFN. Remember the big point here is to remove
the sketchy follow_pte()...
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists