[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BN9PR11MB5433F33CB7CFBCD41BE2F5C68CAA9@BN9PR11MB5433.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 08:49:03 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, "Lu, Baolu" <baolu.lu@...el.com>
CC: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
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
> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 8:22 PM
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > I didn't fully get this point. The end result is same, i.e. making the DMA
> > cache-coherent when IOMMU_CACHE is set. Or if you help define the
> > behavior of IOMMU_CACHE, what will you define now?
>
> It is clearly specifying how the kernel API works:
>
> !IOMMU_CACHE
> must call arch cache flushers
> IOMMU_CACHE -
> do not call arch cache flushers
> IOMMU_CACHE|IOMMU_BLOCK_NO_SNOOP -
> dot not arch cache flushers, and ignore the no snoop bit.
Who will set IOMMU_BLOCK_NO_SNOOP? I feel this is arch specific
knowledge about how cache coherency is implemented, i.e.
when IOMMU_CACHE is set intel-iommu driver just maps it to
blocking no-snoop. It's not necessarily to be an attribute in
the same level as IOMMU_CACHE?
>
> On Intel it should refuse to create a !IOMMU_CACHE since the HW can't
> do that.
Agree. In reality I guess this is not hit because all devices are marked
coherent on Intel platforms...
Baolu, any insight here?
Thanks
Kevin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists