On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 08:33:41AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 03:44:38PM -0700, Raj, Ashok wrote: > > Hi Jason, > > > > I thought we discussed this at LPC, but still seems to be going in > > circles :-(. > > We discused mdev at LPC, not PASID. > > PASID applies widely to many device and needs to be introduced with a > wide community agreement so all scenarios will be supportable. True, reading some of the earlier replies I was clearly confused as I thought you were talking about mdev again. But now that you stay it, you have moved past mdev and its the PASID interfaces correct? > > > As you had suggested earlier in the mail thread could Jason Wang maybe > > build out what it takes to have a full fledged /dev/sva interface for vDPA > > and figure out how the interfaces should emerge? otherwise it appears > > everyone is talking very high level and with that limited understanding of > > how things work at the moment. > > You want Jason Wang to do the work to get Intel PASID support merged? > Seems a bit of strange request. I was reading mdev in my head. Not PASID, sorry. For the native user applications have just 1 PASID per process. There is no need for a quota management. VFIO being the one used for guest where there is more PASID's per guest is where this is enforced today. IIUC, you are asking that part of the interface to move to a API interface that potentially the new /dev/sva and VFIO could share? I think the API's for PASID management themselves are generic (Jean's patchset + Jacob's ioasid set management). Possibly what you need is already available, but not in a specific way that you expect maybe? Let me check with Jacob and let him/Jean pick that up. Cheers, Ashok
