[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220126132731.GR84788@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 09:27:31 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.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>,
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
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 09:51:36AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> > > they are fundamentally different things in their own right, and the ideal
> > > API should give us the orthogonality to also bind a device to an SVA domain
> > > without PASID (e.g. for KVM stage 2, or userspace assignment of simpler
> > > fault/stall-tolerant devices), or attach PASIDs to regular iommu_domains.
> >
> > Yes, these are orthogonal things. A iommu driver that supports PASID
> > ideally should support PASID enabled attach/detatch for every
> > iommu_domain type it supports.
> >
> > SVA should not be entangled with PASID beyond that SVA is often used
> > with PASID - a SVA iommu_domain should be fully usable with a RID too.
>
> The prototype of PASID enabled attach/detach ops could look like:
>
> int (*attach_dev_pasid)(struct iommu_domain *domain,
> struct device *dev, ioasid_t id);
> void (*detach_dev_pasid)(struct iommu_domain *domain,
> struct device *dev, ioasid_t id);
It seems reasonable and straightforward to me..
These would be domain ops?
> But the iommu driver should implement different callbacks for
>
> 1) attaching an IOMMU DMA domain to a PASID on device;
> - kernel DMA with PASID
> - mdev-like device passthrough
> - etc.
> 2) attaching a CPU-shared domain to a PASID on device;
> - SVA
> - guest PASID
> - etc.
But this you mean domain->ops would be different? Seems fine, up to
the driver.
I'd hope to see some flow like:
domain = device->bus->iommu_ops->alloc_sva_domain(dev)
domain->ops->attach_dev_pasid(domain, dev, current->pasid)
To duplicate the current SVA APIs
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists