[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <86ecc67a-8567-f3b3-02c9-572474af8e72@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 18:51:41 +0800
From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
"Zhang, Tina" <tina.zhang@...el.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Michael Shavit <mshavit@...gle.com>
Cc: baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com,
"iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Share sva domains with all devices bound to a mm
On 2023/8/9 17:44, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Baolu Lu<baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 8:18 AM
>>
>> On 2023/8/8 15:49, Tina Zhang wrote:
>>> A sva domain's lifetime begins with binding a device to a mm and ends
>>> by releasing all the bound devices from that sva domain. Technically,
>>> there could be more than one sva domain identified by the mm PASID for
>>> the use of bound devices issuing DMA transactions.
>>>
>>> To support mm PASID 1:n with sva domains, each mm needs to keep both
>> a
>>> reference list of allocated sva domains and the corresponding PASID.
>>> However, currently, mm struct only has one pasid field for sva usage,
>>> which is used to keep the info of an assigned PASID. That pasid field
>>> cannot provide sufficient info to build up the 1:n mapping between PASID
>>> and sva domains.
>> Is it more appropriate to have the same life cycle for sva domain and mm
>> pasid? I feel that they represent the same thing, that is, the address
>> space shared by mm to a device.
>>
> iirc it's a simplification to free mm pasid at __mmdrop() otherwise the
> implementation is tricky, but I don't remember all the detail...
Yeah, probably we could also free the sva domains in __mmdrop()? Remove
the refcount for sva domain just like what we did for pasid (at the
beginning we had refcount for each pasid...).
Best regards,
baolu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists