[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210324151230.466fd47a@jacob-builder>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 15:12:30 -0700
From: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>, Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
Wu Hao <hao.wu@...el.com>, Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 05/18] iommu/ioasid: Redefine IOASID set and
allocation APIs
Hi Jason,
On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 14:03:38 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:02:46AM -0700, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > > Also wondering about device driver allocating auxiliary domains for
> > > their private use, to do iommu_map/unmap on private PASIDs (a clean
> > > replacement to super SVA, for example). Would that go through the
> > > same path as /dev/ioasid and use the cgroup of current task?
> >
> > For the in-kernel private use, I don't think we should restrict based on
> > cgroup, since there is no affinity to user processes. I also think the
> > PASID allocation should just use kernel API instead of /dev/ioasid. Why
> > would user space need to know the actual PASID # for device private
> > domains? Maybe I missed your idea?
>
> There is not much in the kernel that isn't triggered by a process, I
> would be careful about the idea that there is a class of users that
> can consume a cgroup controlled resource without being inside the
> cgroup.
>
> We've got into trouble before overlooking this and with something
> greenfield like PASID it would be best built in to the API to prevent
> a mistake. eg accepting a cgroup or process input to the allocator.
>
Make sense. But I think we only allow charging the current cgroup, how about
I add the following to ioasid_alloc():
misc_cg = get_current_misc_cg();
ret = misc_cg_try_charge(MISC_CG_RES_IOASID, misc_cg, 1);
if (ret) {
put_misc_cg(misc_cg);
return ret;
}
BTW, IOASID will be one of the resources under the proposed misc cgroup.
Thanks,
Jacob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists