[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210510234500.GI1002214@nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 20:45:00 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
Auger Eric <eric.auger@...hat.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" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, "Wu, Hao" <hao.wu@...el.com>,
"Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 05/18] iommu/ioasid: Redefine IOASID set and
allocation APIs
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 03:28:54PM -0700, Jacob Pan wrote:
> To satisfy your "give me a PASID for this RID" proposal, can we just use
> the RID's struct device as the token? Also add a type field to explicitly
> indicate global vs per-set(per-RID). i.e.
You've got it backwards, the main behavior should be to allocate PASID
per RID.
The special behavior is to bundle a bunch of PASIDs into a grouping
and then say the PASID number space is shared between all the group
members.
/dev/ioasid should create and own this grouping either implicitly or
explicitly. Jumping ahead to in-kernel APIs has missed the critical
step of defining the uAPI and all the behaviors together in a
completed RFC proposal.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists