On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 09:53:41AM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote: > On 2023/8/11 0:47, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 02:35:40AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > > From: Baolu Lu<baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 6:41 PM > > > > > > > > On 2023/8/9 8:02, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > > > > From: Jason Gunthorpe<jgg@xxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 2:43 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 08:16:47AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there plan to introduce further error in the future? otherwise this > > > > should > > > > > > > be void. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > btw the work queue is only for sva. If there is no other caller this can be > > > > > > > just kept in iommu-sva.c. No need to create a helper. > > > > > > I think more than just SVA will need a work queue context to process > > > > > > their faults. > > > > > > > > > > > then this series needs more work. Currently the abstraction doesn't > > > > > include workqueue in the common fault reporting layer. > > > > Do you mind elaborate a bit here? workqueue is a basic infrastructure in > > > > the fault handling framework, but it lets the consumers choose to use > > > > it, or not to. > > > > > > > My understanding of Jason's comment was to make the workqueue the > > > default path instead of being opted by the consumer.. that is my 1st > > > impression but might be wrong... > > Yeah, that is one path. Do we have anyone that uses this that doesn't > > want the WQ? (actually who even uses this besides SVA?) > > I am still confused. When we forward iopf's to user space through the > iommufd, we don't need to schedule a WQ, right? Or I misunderstood > here? Yes, that could be true, iommufd could just queue it from the interrupt context and trigger a wakeup. But other iommufd modes would want to invoke hmm_range_fault() which would need the work queue. Jason
