From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jacob Pan Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 05/18] iommu/ioasid: Redefine IOASID set and allocation APIs Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 20:56:32 -0700 Message-ID: <20210510205632.13ff7308@jacob-builder> References: <20210506122730.GQ1370958@nvidia.com> <20210506163240.GA9058@otc-nc-03> <20210510123729.GA1002214@nvidia.com> <20210510152502.GA90095@otc-nc-03> <20210510153111.GB1002214@nvidia.com> <20210510162212.GB90095@otc-nc-03> <20210510163956.GD1002214@nvidia.com> <20210510152854.793ee594@jacob-builder> <20210510234500.GI1002214@nvidia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20210510234500.GI1002214-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: "Raj, Ashok" , "Tian, Kevin" , Jean-Philippe Brucker , Alex Williamson , "Liu, Yi L" , Auger Eric , LKML , Joerg Roedel , Lu Baolu , David Woodhouse , "iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org" , "cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Tejun Heo , Johannes Weiner , Jean-Philippe Brucker , Jonathan Corbet , "Wu, Hao" , "Jiang, Dave" , jacob.jun.pan-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org Hi Jason, On Mon, 10 May 2021 20:45:00 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 03:28:54PM -0700, Jacob Pan wrote: > > > To satisfy your "give me a PASID for this RID" proposal, can we just use > > the RID's struct device as the token? Also add a type field to > > explicitly indicate global vs per-set(per-RID). i.e. > > You've got it backwards, the main behavior should be to allocate PASID > per RID. > Sure, we can make the local PASID as default. My point was that the ioasid_set infrastructure's opaque token can support RID-local allocation scheme. Anyway, this is a small detail as compared to uAPI. > The special behavior is to bundle a bunch of PASIDs into a grouping > and then say the PASID number space is shared between all the group > members. > > /dev/ioasid should create and own this grouping either implicitly or > explicitly. Jumping ahead to in-kernel APIs has missed the critical > step of defining the uAPI and all the behaviors together in a > completed RFC proposal. > Agreed, the requirements for kernel API should come from uAPI. > Jason Thanks, Jacob