[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BN9PR11MB527647F0336BBD8528E3413B8C5F9@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 01:11:55 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@...hat.com>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"Eric Auger" <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
"Pan, Jacob jun" <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
"Daniel Vetter" <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/7] iommu cleanup and refactoring
> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 1:44 AM
>
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 09:46:26AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > From: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 3:11 PM
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > The guest pasid and aux-domain related code are dead code in current
> > > iommu subtree. As we have reached a consensus that all these features
> > > should be based on the new iommufd framework (which is under active
> > > development), the first part of this series removes and cleanups all
> > > the dead code.
> > >
> > > The second part of this series refactors the iommu_domain by moving all
> > > domain-specific ops from iommu_ops to a new domain_ops. This makes
> an
> > > iommu_domain self-contained and represent the abstraction of an I/O
> > > translation table in the IOMMU subsystem. With different type of
> > > iommu_domain providing different set of ops, it's easier to support more
> > > types of I/O translation tables.
> >
> > You may want to give more background on this end goal. In general there
> > are four IOPT types in iommufd discussions:
> >
> > 1) The one currently tracked by iommu_domain, with a map/unmap
> semantics
> > 2) The one managed by mm and shared to iommu via sva_bind/unbind ops
> > 3) The one managed by userspace and bound to iommu via iommufd
> (require nesting)
> > 4) The one managed by KVM (e.g. EPT) and shared to iommu via a TBD
> interface
>
> Yes, at least from an iommufd perspective I'd like to see one struct
> for all of these types, mainly so we can have a uniform alloc, attach
> and detatch flow for all io page table types.
>
> If we want to use the iommu_domain, or make iommu_domain a sub-class
> of a new struct, can be determined as we go along.
>
> Regardless, I think this cleanup stands on its own. Moving the ops and
> purging the dead code is clearly the right thing to do.
>
Indeed!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists