On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 11:04:47AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, Aug 02, 2021 at 02:49:44AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > Can you elaborate? IMO the user only cares about the label (device cookie > > plus optional vPASID) which is generated by itself when doing the attaching > > call, and expects this virtual label being used in various spots (invalidation, > > page fault, etc.). How the system labels the traffic (the physical RID or RID+ > > PASID) should be completely invisible to userspace. > > I don't think that is true if the vIOMMU driver is also emulating > PASID. Presumably the same is true for other PASID-like schemes. Right. The idea for an SVA capable vIOMMU in my scheme is that the hypervisor would set up an IOAS of address type "PASID+address" with the mappings made by the guest according to its vIOMMU semantics. Then SVA capable devices would be plugged into that IOAS by using "PASID+address" type endpoints from those devices. -- 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
