RE: [RFC 0/7] Support in-kernel DMA with PASID and SVA

Campin, Mike
2021-09-30T14:52:18Z

I need support for mixed user PASID, kernel PASID and non-PASID use cases in the driver.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 4:43 PM
To: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org; LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>; Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>; Tian, Kevin <kevin.tian@intel.com>; Luck, Tony <tony.luck@intel.com>; Jiang, Dave <dave.jiang@intel.com>; Raj, Ashok <ashok.raj@intel.com>; Kumar, Sanjay K <sanjay.k.kumar@intel.com>; Campin, Mike <mike.campin@intel.com>; Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/7] Support in-kernel DMA with PASID and SVA

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 03:57:20PM -0700, Jacob Pan wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 16:39:53 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 12:37:19PM -0700, Jacob Pan wrote:
> >
> > > For #2, it seems we can store the kernel PASID in struct device.
> > > This will preserve the DMA API interface while making it PASID capable.
> > > Essentially, each PASID capable device would have two special
> > > global
> > > PASIDs:
> > > - PASID 0 for DMA request w/o PASID, aka RID2PASID
> > > - PASID 1 (randomly selected) for in-kernel DMA request w/ PASID
> >
> > This seems reasonable, I had the same thought. Basically just have
> > the driver issue some trivial call:
> > pci_enable_pasid_dma(pdev, &pasid)
> That would work, but I guess it needs to be an iommu_ call instead of pci_?

Which ever makes sense.. The API should take in a struct pci_device and return a PCI PASID - at least as a wrapper around a more generic immu api.

> I think your suggestion is more precise, in case the driver does not
> want to do DMA w/ PASID, we can do less IOTLB flush (PASID 0 only).

Since it is odd, and it may create overhead, I would do it only when asked to do it

> > Having multiple RID's pointing at the same IO page table is
> > something we expect iommufd to require so the whole thing should
> > ideally fall out naturally.

> That would be the equivalent of attaching multiple devices to the same
> IOMMU domain. right?

Effectively..

Jason