[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211210174848.GH6385@nvidia.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:48:48 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"Kumar, Sanjay K" <sanjay.k.kumar@...el.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>,
"Zanussi, Tom" <tom.zanussi@...el.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] iommu/vt-d: Support PASID DMA for in-kernel usage
On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 09:50:25AM -0800, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > Tying pasid to an iommu_domain is not a good idea. An iommu_domain
> > represents an I/O address translation table. It could be attached to a
> > device or a PASID on the device.
>
> I don;t think we can avoid storing PASID at domain level or the group's
> default domain. IOTLB flush is per domain. Default domain of DMA type
> is already tying to PASID0, right?
No, it is just wrong.
If the HW requires a list of everything that is connected to the
iommu_domain then it's private iommu_domain should have that list.
But it is a *list* not a single PASID.
If one device has 10 PASID's pointing to this domain you must flush
them all if that is what the HW requires.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists