[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YNwVrZoR5k3RnWeL@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 07:56:45 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
Cc: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
"Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC] /dev/ioasid uAPI proposal
On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 03:25:32AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>
> Possibly just a naming thing, but I feel it's better to just talk about
> no-snoop or non-coherent in the uAPI. Per Intel SDM wbinvd is a
> privileged instruction. A process on the host has no privilege to
> execute it. Only when this process holds a VM, this instruction matters
> as there are guest privilege levels. But having VFIO uAPI (which is
> userspace oriented) to explicitly deal with a CPU instruction which
> makes sense only in a virtualization context sounds a bit weird...
More importantly the Intel instructions here are super weird.
Pretty much every other architecture just has plan old cache
writeback/invalidate/writeback+invalidate instructions without all these
weird implications.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists