[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPj87rOKGcufM0xB+uMCxhs0SdXCHpViyTd+jQ0+=B1kSihvVw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 13:29:54 +0100
From: Daniel Stone <daniel@...ishbar.org>
To: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu@...euvizoso.net>
Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>,
Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.com>,
Nicolas Frattaroli <nicolas.frattaroli@...labora.com>, Kever Yang <kever.yang@...k-chips.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 06/10] accel/rocket: Add IOCTL for BO creation
Hey,
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 at 08:41, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu@...euvizoso.net> wrote:
> > Indeed if you're using the IOMMU API directly then you need to do your
> > own address space management either way, so matching bits of process VA
> > space is pretty simple to put on the table.
>
> My impression was that the VM_BIND facility is intended for SVM as in
> OpenCL and maybe Vulkan?
>
> Guess my question is, what would such an accelerator driver win by
> letting userspace manage the address space?
I mean, not a lot gained, but otoh there's also not much to be gained
by using the kernel's range allocator either, and it saves userspace a
roundtrip to discover the VA for a BO it just created/mapped?
Cheers,
Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists