On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 01:39:54PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 03:11:25PM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > > > > So your proposal sort of moves the entire container/group/domain > > > managment into /dev/ioasid and then leaves vfio only provide device > > > specific uAPI. An ioasid represents a page table (address space), thus > > > is equivalent to the scope of VFIO container. > > > > Right. I don't really know how /dev/iosasid is supposed to work, and > > so far I don't see how it conceptually differs from a container. What > > is it adding? > > There are three motivating topics: > 1) /dev/vfio/vfio is only usable by VFIO and we have many interesting > use cases now where we need the same thing usable outside VFIO > 2) /dev/vfio/vfio does not support modern stuff like PASID and > updating to support that is going to be a big change, like adding > multiple IOASIDs so they can be modeled as as a tree inside a > single FD > 3) I understand there is some desire to revise the uAPI here a bit, > ie Alex mentioned the poor mapping performance. > > I would say it is not conceptually different from what VFIO calls a > container, it is just a different uAPI with the goal to be cross > subsystem. Ok, that makes sense. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
