[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210923112716.GE964074@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 08:27:16 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>
Cc: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>, "hch@....de" <hch@....de>,
"jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.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 10/20] iommu/iommufd: Add IOMMU_DEVICE_GET_INFO
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 11:15:24AM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> So we can only tell userspace "No_snoop is not supported" (provided we
> even want to allow them to enable No_snoop). Users in control of stage-1
> tables can create non-cacheable mappings through MAIR attributes.
My point is that ARM is using IOMMU_CACHE to control the overall
cachability of the DMA
ie not specifying IOMMU_CACHE requires using the arch specific DMA
cache flushers.
Intel never uses arch specifc DMA cache flushers, and instead is
abusing IOMMU_CACHE to mean IOMMU_BLOCK_NO_SNOOP on DMA that is always
cachable.
These are different things and need different bits. Since the ARM path
has a lot more code supporting it, I'd suggest Intel should change
their code to use IOMMU_BLOCK_NO_SNOOP and abandon IOMMU_CACHE.
Which clarifies what to do here as uAPI - these things need to have
different bits and Intel's should still have NO SNOOP in the
name. What the no-snoop bit is called on other busses can be clarified
in comments if that case ever arises.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists