Re: [PATCH 1/5] iommu: Enhance domain allocation code to take additional flags

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 09:50:57AM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
> On 8/22/24 12:31 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > >    I think instead of having separate function it may be better to
> > >    enhance __iommu_domain_alloc() such that:
> > >      - Keep below changes from this patch
> > >        - iommu_domain_init()
> > >        - iommu_get_dma_cookie call inside iommu_setup_default_domain()
> > >      - modify __iommu_domain_alloc() to additional param (flags)
> > >      - iommu_paging_domain_alloc_flags() will call __iommu_domain_alloc()
> > My expectation was to basically remove iommu_domain_alloc() entirely
> > once Lu's work is merged.
> > 
> > Instead we'd have these direct APIs:
> >    iommu_domain_alloc_paging_flags()
> 
> Is it possible to use different domain allocation APIs for kernel DMA
> and user-space DMA? Right now, we differentiate between these two types
> of domains using IOMMU_DOMAIN_DMA and IOMMU_DOMAIN_UNMANAGED.

I really don't want to have such a distinction.

> I'm thinking about this because the Intel iommu driver has a similar
> need to AMD. They both recommend using different page table formats for
> IOMMU_DOMAIN_DMA and IOMMU_DOMAIN_UNMANAGED, which is currently stopping
> us from implementing domain_alloc_paging in the Intel iommu driver.

Why? What exactly is the issue?

It is inhernetly wrong to behave differently based on DMA API or VFIO.
They are not different things.

If you have different behaviors and different properies, like AMD's
PASID, then they should be described and mapped to some kind of flag.

Otherwise the driver should always allocate a paging domain that gives
the highest performance.

Jason