On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 08:17:27AM -0700, Jacob Pan wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> On Tue, 24 May 2022 10:50:34 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 11:21:15AM -0700, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > > DMA requests tagged with PASID can target individual IOMMU domains.
> > > Introduce a domain-wide PASID for DMA API, it will be used on the same
> > > mapping as legacy DMA without PASID. Let it be IOVA or PA in case of
> > > identity domain.
> >
> > Huh? I can't understand what this is trying to say or why this patch
> > makes sense.
> >
> > We really should not have pasid's like this attached to the domains..
> >
> This is the same "DMA API global PASID" you reviewed in v3, I just
> singled it out as a standalone patch and renamed it. Here is your previous
> review comment.
>
> > +++ b/include/linux/iommu.h
> > @@ -105,6 +105,8 @@ struct iommu_domain {
> > enum iommu_page_response_code (*iopf_handler)(struct iommu_fault *fault,
> > void *data);
> > void *fault_data;
> > + ioasid_t pasid; /* Used for DMA requests with PASID */
> > + atomic_t pasid_users;
>
> These are poorly named, this is really the DMA API global PASID and
> shouldn't be used for other things.
>
>
>
> Perhaps I misunderstood, do you mind explaining more?
You still haven't really explained what this is for in this patch,
maybe it just needs a better commit message, or maybe something is
wrong.
I keep saying the DMA API usage is not special, so why do we need to
create a new global pasid and refcount? Realistically this is only
going to be used by IDXD, why can't we just allocate a PASID and
return it to the driver every time a driver asks for DMA API on PASI
mode? Why does the core need to do anything special?
Jason
