Hi Kevin,
On 9/25/19 3:32 PM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Lu Baolu [mailto:baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2019 2:52 PM
Hi Peter and Kevin,
On 9/25/19 1:24 PM, Peter Xu wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 04:38:31AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Peter Xu [mailto:peterx@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2019 12:31 PM
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 09:38:53AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
intel_mmmap_range(domain, addr, end, phys_addr, prot)
Maybe think of a different name..? mmmap seems a bit weird :-)
Yes. I don't like it either. I've thought about it and haven't
figured out a satisfied one. Do you have any suggestions?
How about at least split the word using "_"? Like "mm_map", then
apply it to all the "mmm*" prefixes. Otherwise it'll be easily
misread as mmap() which is totally irrelevant to this...
what is the point of keeping 'mm' here? replace it with 'iommu'?
I'm not sure of what Baolu thought, but to me "mm" makes sense itself
to identify this from real IOMMU page tables (because IIUC these will
be MMU page tables). We can come up with better names, but IMHO
"iommu" can be a bit misleading to let people refer to the 2nd level
page table.
"mm" represents a CPU (first level) page table;
vs.
"io" represents an IOMMU (second level) page table.
IOMMU first level is not equivalent to CPU page table, though you can
use the latter as the first level (e.g. in SVA). Especially here you are
making IOVA->GPA as the first level, which is not CPU page table.
btw both levels are for "io" i.e. DMA purposes from VT-d p.o.v. They
are just hierarchical structures implemented by VT-d, with slightly
different format. The specification doesn't limit how you use them for.
In a hypothetical case, an IOMMU may implement exactly same CPU-page-
table format and support page faults for both levels. Then you can even
link the CPU page table to the 2nd level for sure.
Fair enough. A good conceptual gap fix.
Maybe we just name it from VT-d context, e.g. intel_map_first_level_range,
Intel_map_second_level_range, and then register them as dmar domain
callback as you replied in another mail.
Yes. Make sense.
Thanks
Kevin
Best regards,
Baolu
