[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BN9PR11MB543366158EA87572902EFF5E8CA29@BN9PR11MB5433.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 22:34:42 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>, "hch@....de" <hch@....de>,
"jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"jean-philippe@...aro.org" <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
"parav@...lanox.com" <parav@...lanox.com>,
"lkml@...ux.net" <lkml@...ux.net>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"lushenming@...wei.com" <lushenming@...wei.com>,
"eric.auger@...hat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
"corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"yi.l.liu@...ux.intel.com" <yi.l.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
"Tian, Jun J" <jun.j.tian@...el.com>, "Wu, Hao" <hao.wu@...el.com>,
"Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
"jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com" <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
"kwankhede@...dia.com" <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"dwmw2@...radead.org" <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
"david@...son.dropbear.id.au" <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
"nicolinc@...dia.com" <nicolinc@...dia.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC 03/20] vfio: Add vfio_[un]register_device()
> From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 4:11 AM
>
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 09:22:52 -0300
> Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 09:23:34AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >
> > > > Providing an ioctl to bind to a normal VFIO container or group might
> > > > allow a reasonable fallback in userspace..
> > >
> > > I didn't get this point though. An error in binding already allows the
> > > user to fall back to the group path. Why do we need introduce another
> > > ioctl to explicitly bind to container via the nongroup interface?
> >
> > New userspace still needs a fallback path if it hits the 'try and
> > fail'. Keeping the device FD open and just using a different ioctl to
> > bind to a container/group FD, which new userspace can then obtain as a
> > fallback, might be OK.
> >
> > Hard to see without going through the qemu parts, so maybe just keep
> > it in mind
>
> If we assume that the container/group/device interface is essentially
> deprecated once we have iommufd, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me
> to tack on a container/device interface just so userspace can avoid
> reverting to the fully legacy interface.
>
> But why would we create vfio device interface files at all if they
> can't work? I'm not really on board with creating a try-and-fail
> interface for a mechanism that cannot work for a given device. The
> existence of the device interface should indicate that it's supported.
> Thanks,
>
Now it's a try-and-fail model even for devices which support iommufd.
Per Jason's suggestion, a device is always opened with a parked fops
which supports only bind. Binding serves as the contract for handling
exclusive ownership on a device and switching to normal fops if
succeed. So the user has to try-and-fail in case multiple threads attempt
to open a same device. Device which doesn't support iommufd is not
different, except binding request 100% fails (due to missing .bind_iommufd
in kernel driver).
Thanks
Kevin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists