> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, May 14, 2021 9:40 PM > > On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 01:17:23PM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> > > > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 8:01 PM > > > > > > On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 03:28:52AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > > > > > Are you specially concerned about this iommu_device hack which > > > > directly connects mdev_device to iommu layer or the entire removed > > > > logic including the aux domain concept? For the former we are now > > > > following up the referred thread to find a clean way. But for the latter > > > > we feel it's still necessary regardless of how iommu interface is > redesigned > > > > to support device connection from the upper level driver. The reason is > > > > that with mdev or subdevice one physical device could be attached to > > > > multiple domains now. there could be a primary domain with DOMAIN_ > > > > DMA type for DMA_API use by parent driver itself, and multiple > auxiliary > > > > domains with DOMAIN_UNMANAGED types for subdevices assigned to > > > > different VMs. > > > > > > Why do we need more domains than just the physical domain for the > > > parent? How does auxdomain appear in /dev/ioasid? > > > > > > > Another simple reason. Say you have 4 mdevs each from a different > > parent are attached to an ioasid. If only using physical domain of the > > parent + PASID it means there are 4 domains (thus 4 page tables) under > > this IOASID thus every dma map operation must be replicated in all > > 4 domains which is really unnecessary. Having the domain created > > with ioasid and allow a device attaching to multiple domains is much > > cleaner for the upper-layer drivers to work with iommu interface. > > Eh? That sounds messed up. > > The IOASID is the page table. If you have one IOASID and you attach it > to 4 IOMMU routings (be it pasid, rid, whatever) then there should > only ever by one page table. > > The iommu driver should just point the iommu HW at the shared page > table for each of the 4 routes and be done with it. At worst it has to > replicate invalidates, but that is very HW dependent. > > Domain is just a half-completed-ioasid concept. It is today not > flexible enough to be a true IOASID, but it still does hold the io > page table. > > Basically your data structure is an IOASID. It holds a single HW > specific page table. The IOASID has a list of RID and (RID,PASID) that > are authorized to use it. The IOMMU HW is programed to match the > RID/(RID,PASID) list and search the single page table. When the page > table is changed the IOMMU is told to dump caches, however that works. > > When a device driver wants to use an IOASID it tells the iommu to > setup the route, either RID or (RID,PASID). Setting the route causes > the IOMMU driver to update the HW. > > The struct device has enough context to provide the RID and the IOMMU > driver connection when operating on the IOASID. > Well, I see what you meant now. Basically you want to make IOASID as the first-class object in the entire iommu stack, replacing what iommu domain fulfill todays. Our original proposal was still based on domain-centric philosophy thus containing IOASID and its routing info only in the uAPI layer of /dev/ioasid and then connecting to domains. As this touches the core concept of the iommu layer, we'd really like to also hear from Jeorg. It's a huge work. btw are you OK with our ongoing uAPI proposal still based on domain flavor for now? the uAPI semantics should be generic regardless of how underlying iommu interfaces are designed. At least separate uAPI discussion from iommu ops re-design. Thanks Kevin
