Re: [PATCH v5 4/9] iommufd: Add fault and response message definitions

Baolu Lu
2024-05-20T03:35:18Z

On 5/20/24 11:24 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2024 10:38 PM
>>
>> On 2024/5/15 15:43, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>>> From: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 10:57 PM
>>>>
>>>> iommu_hwpt_pgfaults represent fault messages that the userspace can
>>>> retrieve. Multiple iommu_hwpt_pgfaults might be put in an iopf group,
>>>> with the IOMMU_PGFAULT_FLAGS_LAST_PAGE flag set only for the last
>>>> iommu_hwpt_pgfault.
>>>
>>> Do you envision extending the same structure to report unrecoverable
>>> fault in the future?
>>
>> I am not envisioning extending this to report unrecoverable faults in
>> the future. The unrecoverable faults are not always related to a hwpt,
>> and therefore it's more suitable to route them through a viommu object
>> which is under discussion in Nicolin's series.
>
> OK, I'll take a look at that series when reaching it in my TODO list. 😊
>
>>>> + * @length: a hint of how much data the requestor is expecting to fetch.
>> For
>>>> + * example, if the PRI initiator knows it is going to do a 10MB
>>>> + * transfer, it could fill in 10MB and the OS could pre-fault in
>>>> + * 10MB of IOVA. It's default to 0 if there's no such hint.
>>>
>>> This is not clear to me and I don't remember PCIe spec defines such
>>> mechanism.
>>
>> This came up in a previous discussion. While it's not currently part of
>
> Can you provide a link to that discussion?

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/20240322170410.GH66976@ziepe.ca/

>
>> the PCI specification and may not be in the future, we'd like to add
>> this mechanism for potential future advanced device features as it
>> offers significant optimization benefits.
>>
>
> We design uAPI for real usages. It's a bit weird to introduce a format
> for unknown future features w/o an actual user to demonstrate its
> correctness.

Best regards,
baolu