[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BN9PR11MB527691474154C32D5D1678918CE79@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 07:09:49 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
"Christian Benvenuti" <benve@...co.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
"David Woodhouse" <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"Joerg Roedel" <joro@...tes.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Nelson Escobar <neescoba@...co.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
"Suravee Suthikulpanit" <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
CC: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 3/5] iommu: Introduce the domain op
enforce_cache_coherency()
> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 12:16 AM
>
> This new mechanism will replace using IOMMU_CAP_CACHE_COHERENCY
> and
> IOMMU_CACHE to control the no-snoop blocking behavior of the IOMMU.
>
> Currently only Intel and AMD IOMMUs are known to support this
> feature. They both implement it as an IOPTE bit, that when set, will cause
> PCIe TLPs to that IOVA with the no-snoop bit set to be treated as though
> the no-snoop bit was clear.
>
> The new API is triggered by calling enforce_cache_coherency() before
> mapping any IOVA to the domain which globally switches on no-snoop
> blocking. This allows other implementations that might block no-snoop
> globally and outside the IOPTE - AMD also documents such an HW capability.
>
> Leave AMD out of sync with Intel and have it block no-snoop even for
> in-kernel users. This can be trivially resolved in a follow up patch.
>
> Only VFIO will call this new API.
Is it too restrictive? In theory vdpa may also implement a contract with
KVM and then wants to call this new API too?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists