Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] iommu/vt-d: Implement domain ops for attach_dev_pasid

Baolu Lu
2022-05-12T01:16:46Z

On 2022/5/12 01:25, Jacob Pan wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> On Wed, 11 May 2022 14:00:25 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 10:02:16AM -0700, Jacob Pan wrote:
>>>>> If not global, perhaps we could have a list of pasids (e.g. xarray)
>>>>> attached to the device_domain_info. The TLB flush logic would just
>>>>> go through the list w/o caring what the PASIDs are for. Does it
>>>>> make sense to you?
>>>>
>>>> Sort of, but we shouldn't duplicate xarrays - the group already has
>>>> this xarray - need to find some way to allow access to it from the
>>>> driver.
>>>>
>>> I am not following, here are the PASIDs for devTLB flush which is per
>>> device. Why group?
>>
>> Because group is where the core code stores it.
> I see, with singleton group. I guess I can let dma-iommu code call
>
> iommu_attach_dma_pasid {
> iommu_attach_device_pasid();
> Then the PASID will be stored in the group xa.
> The flush code can retrieve PASIDs from device_domain_info.device -> group
> -> pasid_array.
> Thanks for pointing it out, I missed the new pasid_array.
>>
>>> We could retrieve PASIDs from the device PASID table but xa would be
>>> more efficient.
>>>
>>>>>>> Are you suggesting the dma-iommu API should be called
>>>>>>> iommu_set_dma_pasid instead of iommu_attach_dma_pasid?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No that API is Ok - the driver ops API should be 'set' not
>>>>>> attach/detach
>>>>> Sounds good, this operation has little in common with
>>>>> domain_ops.dev_attach_pasid() used by SVA domain. So I will add a
>>>>> new domain_ops.dev_set_pasid()
>>>>
>>>> What? No, their should only be one operation, 'dev_set_pasid' and it
>>>> is exactly the same as the SVA operation. It configures things so that
>>>> any existing translation on the PASID is removed and the PASID
>>>> translates according to the given domain.
>>>>
>>>> SVA given domain or UNMANAGED given domain doesn't matter to the
>>>> higher level code. The driver should implement per-domain ops as
>>>> required to get the different behaviors.
>>> Perhaps some code to clarify, we have
>>> sva_domain_ops.dev_attach_pasid() = intel_svm_attach_dev_pasid;
>>> default_domain_ops.dev_attach_pasid() = intel_iommu_attach_dev_pasid;
>>
>> Yes, keep that structure
>>
>>> Consolidate pasid programming into dev_set_pasid() then called by both
>>> intel_svm_attach_dev_pasid() and intel_iommu_attach_dev_pasid(), right?
>>>
>>
>> I was only suggesting that really dev_attach_pasid() op is misnamed,
>> it should be called set_dev_pasid() and act like a set, not a paired
>> attach/detach - same as the non-PASID ops.
>>
> Got it. Perhaps another patch to rename, Baolu?

Yes. I can rename it in my sva series if others are also happy with this
naming.

Best regards,
baolu