[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BL1PR11MB52712F4AAF7D1388A080A49E8C9B2@BL1PR11MB5271.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 06:25:16 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
CC: "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>, "joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"suravee.suthikulpanit@....com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>, "dwmw2@...radead.org"
<dwmw2@...radead.org>, "baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
"shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "iommu@...ts.linux.dev"
<iommu@...ts.linux.dev>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, "eric.auger@...hat.com"
<eric.auger@...hat.com>, "jean-philippe@...aro.org"
<jean-philippe@...aro.org>, "mdf@...nel.org" <mdf@...nel.org>,
"mshavit@...gle.com" <mshavit@...gle.com>,
"shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com"
<shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>, "smostafa@...gle.com"
<smostafa@...gle.com>, "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 17/19] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add
arm_smmu_viommu_cache_invalidate
> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 6, 2024 2:22 AM
>
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 11:00:49AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 01:20:39PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 09:59:54AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > >
> > > > +static int arm_smmu_viommu_cache_invalidate(struct
> iommufd_viommu *viommu,
> > > > + struct iommu_user_data_array
> *array)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct iommu_domain *domain =
> iommufd_viommu_to_parent_domain(viommu);
> > > > +
> > > > + return __arm_smmu_cache_invalidate_user(
> > > > + to_smmu_domain(domain), viommu, array);
> > >
> > > I'd like to have the viommu struct directly hold the VMID. The nested
> > > parent should be sharable between multiple viommus, it doesn't make
> > > any sense that it would hold the vmid.
> > >
> > > This is struggling because it is trying too hard to not have the
> > > driver allocate the viommu, and I think we should just go ahead and do
> > > that. Store the vmid, today copied from the nesting parent in the vmid
> > > private struct. No need for iommufd_viommu_to_parent_domain(), just
> > > rework the APIs to pass the vmid down not a domain.
> >
> > OK. When I designed all this stuff, we still haven't made mind
> > about sharing the s2 domain, i.e. moving the VMID, which might
> > need a couple of more patches to achieve.
>
> Yes, many more patches, and don't try to do it now.. But we can copy
> the vmid from the s2 and place it in the viommu struct during
> allocation time.
>
does it assume that a viommu object cannot span multiple physical
IOMMUs so there is only one vmid per viommu?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists