[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aCn6hrev3k7A1Q1E@Asurada-Nvidia>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 08:19:34 -0700
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
CC: "jgg@...dia.com" <jgg@...dia.com>, "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
"will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>, "bagasdotme@...il.com"
<bagasdotme@...il.com>, "robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>, "thierry.reding@...il.com"
<thierry.reding@...il.com>, "vdumpa@...dia.com" <vdumpa@...dia.com>,
"jonathanh@...dia.com" <jonathanh@...dia.com>, "shuah@...nel.org"
<shuah@...nel.org>, "jsnitsel@...hat.com" <jsnitsel@...hat.com>,
"nathan@...nel.org" <nathan@...nel.org>, "peterz@...radead.org"
<peterz@...radead.org>, "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
"mshavit@...gle.com" <mshavit@...gle.com>, "praan@...gle.com"
<praan@...gle.com>, "zhangzekun11@...wei.com" <zhangzekun11@...wei.com>,
"iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>, "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, "patches@...ts.linux.dev"
<patches@...ts.linux.dev>, "mochs@...dia.com" <mochs@...dia.com>,
"alok.a.tiwari@...cle.com" <alok.a.tiwari@...cle.com>, "vasant.hegde@....com"
<vasant.hegde@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 11/23] iommufd/viommu: Add IOMMUFD_CMD_HW_QUEUE_ALLOC
ioctl
Hi Kevin,
On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 09:05:11PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 03:52:16AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > But hey, we are already adding various restrictions to the uAPI
> > about dependency, contiguity, etc. which the VMM should conform
> > to. What hurts if we further say that the VMM should allocate
> > virtual index in an ascending order along with hw queue allocation?
>
> You mean adding another flag to manage the dependency in the core,
> right?
>
> I talked with Jason offline when adding that depend API. He didn't
> want it to be in the core, saying that is a driver thing.
>
> But that was before we added pin and contiguity, which he doesn't
> really enjoy being in the core either.
>
> So, yea, I think you have a point here..
It seems Jason is out of office. And in the last sync w.r.t this,
he thinks that this ascending order stuff is too unique/weird to
make sense as a feature in the core, that there would be unlikely
a second HW wanting this..
I think that's a valid point too. The pin/contiguity requirement
at least serves for HW that reads in physical address space, and
it could result in a slightly faster memory access since it does
not need a translation, which though gives software some trouble
yet still makes sense IMHO.
So, in v5, I kept the dependency APIs rather than moving to the
core. I think we can move to the core later if we see another HW
doing the same thing.
Thanks
Nicolin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists