[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211001033054.GD16450@lst.de>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021 05:30:54 +0200
From: "hch@....de" <hch@....de>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
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>,
"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 10/20] iommu/iommufd: Add IOMMU_DEVICE_GET_INFO
On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 07:23:55PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > The Intel functional issue is that Intel blocks the cache maintaince
> > > ops from the VM and the VM has no way to self-discover that the cache
> > > maintaince ops don't work.
> >
> > the VM doesn't need to know whether the maintenance ops
> > actually works.
>
> Which is the whole problem.
>
> Intel has a design where the device driver tells the device to issue
> non-cachable TLPs.
>
> The driver is supposed to know if it can issue the cache maintaince
> instructions - if it can then it should ask the device to issue
> no-snoop TLPs.
The driver should never issue them. This whole idea that a driver
can just magically poke the cache directly is just one of these horrible
short cuts that seems to happen in GPU land all the time but nowhere
else.
> > coherency and indirectly the underlying I/O page table format.
> > If yes, then I don't see a reason why such decision should not be
> > given to userspace for passthrough case.
>
> The choice all comes down to if the other arches have cache
> maintenance instructions in the VM that *don't work*
Or have them at all.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists