[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210330130755.GN2356281@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 10:07:55 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>
Cc: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 05/18] iommu/ioasid: Redefine IOASID set and
allocation APIs
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 09:06:42AM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> It's not inconceivable to have a control queue doing DMA tagged with
> PASID. The devices I know either use untagged DMA, or have a choice to use
> a PASID.
I don't think we should encourage that. A PASID and all the related is
so expensive compared to just doing normal untagged kernel DMA.
I assume HW has these features because virtualization use cases might
use them, eg by using mdev to assign a command queue - then it would
need be be contained by a PASID.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists