[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210601172956.GL1002214@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2021 14:29:56 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
Liu Yi L <yi.l.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
"Alex Williamson (alex.williamson@...hat.com)\"\""
<alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] /dev/ioasid uAPI proposal
On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 02:07:05PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> For the case of 1M, I would like to know what's the use case for a single
> process to handle 1M+ address spaces?
For some scenarios every guest PASID will require a IOASID ID # so
there is a large enough demand that FDs alone are not a good fit.
Further there are global container wide properties that are hard to
carry over to a multi-FD model, like the attachment of devices to the
container at the startup.
> > So this RFC treats fd as a container of address spaces which is each
> > tagged by an IOASID.
>
> If the container and address space is 1:1 then the container seems useless.
The examples at the bottom of the document show multiple IOASIDs in
the container for a parent/child type relationship
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists