[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220316140140.76bb24c6@jacob-builder>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 14:01:40 -0700
From: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.com>,
"Pan, Jacob jun" <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"Kumar, Sanjay K" <sanjay.k.kumar@...el.com>,
"Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"Zanussi, Tom" <tom.zanussi@...el.com>,
"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>, jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/8] iommu/vt-d: Implement device_pasid domain attach
ops
Hi Kevin,
On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 07:41:34 +0000, "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
wrote:
> > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 10:33 PM
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 10:07:07PM -0700, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > > + /*
> > > + * Each domain could have multiple devices attached with
> > > shared or
> > per
> > > + * device PASIDs. At the domain level, we keep track of
> > > unique PASIDs
> > and
> > > + * device user count.
> > > + * E.g. If a domain has two devices attached, device A has
> > > PASID 0, 1;
> > > + * device B has PASID 0, 2. Then the domain would have PASID
> > > 0, 1, 2.
> > > + */
> >
> > A 2d array of xarray's seems like a poor data structure for this task.
>
Perhaps i mis-presented here, I am not using 2D array. It is an 1D xarray
for domain PASIDs only. Then I use the existing device list in each domain,
adding another xa to track per-device-domain PASIDs.
> besides that it also doesn't work when we support per-device PASID
> allocation in the future. In that case merging device PASIDs together is
> conceptually wrong.
>
Sorry, could you elaborate? If we do per-dev PASID allocation, we could use
the ioasid_set for each pdev, right?
> >
> > AFACIT this wants to store a list of (device, pasid) tuples, so a
> > simple linked list, 1d xarray vector or a red black tree seems more
> > appropriate..
> >
>
> this tuple can well serve per-device PASID. 😊
>
I commented on the other email, but a simple list of tuples could have
duplicated devices since each dev could attach multiple PASIDs, right?
Should we still do two level then?
> Thanks
> Kevin
Thanks,
Jacob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists