On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 07:59:41PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
> On 2022/5/12 19:48, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 01:17:08PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
> > > On 2022/5/12 13:01, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > > > From: Baolu Lu <baolu...@linux.intel.com>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 11:03 AM
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2022/5/11 22:53, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > > > > > Also, given the current arrangement it might make sense to have
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > struct iommu_domain_sva given that no driver is wrappering this
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > something else.
> > > > > > > Fair enough. How about below wrapper?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +struct iommu_sva_domain {
> > > > > > > + /*
> > > > > > > + * Common iommu domain header,*must* be put at the top
> > > > > > > + * of the structure.
> > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > + struct iommu_domain domain;
> > > > > > > + struct mm_struct *mm;
> > > > > > > + struct iommu_sva bond;
> > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The refcount is wrapped in bond.
> > > > > > I'm still not sure that bond is necessary
> > > > >
> > > > > "bond" is the sva handle that the device drivers get through calling
> > > > > iommu_sva_bind().
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > 'bond' was required before because we didn't have a domain to wrap
> > > > the page table at that time.
> > > >
> > > > Now we have a domain and it is 1:1 associated to bond. Probably
> > > > make sense now by just returning the domain as the sva handle
> > > > instead?
> > >
> > > It also includes the device information that the domain has been
> > > attached. So the sva_unbind() looks like this:
> > >
> > > /**
> > > * iommu_sva_unbind_device() - Remove a bond created with
> > > iommu_sva_bind_device
> > > * @handle: the handle returned by iommu_sva_bind_device()
> > > *
> > > * Put reference to a bond between device and address space. The device
> > > should
> > > * not be issuing any more transaction for this PASID. All outstanding
> > > page
> > > * requests for this PASID must have been flushed to the IOMMU.
> > > */
> > > void iommu_sva_unbind_device(struct iommu_sva *handle)
> > >
> > > It's fine to replace the iommu_sva with iommu_sva_domain for sva handle,
> > > if we can include the device in the unbind() interface.
> >
> > Why would we have a special unbind for SVA?
>
> It's about SVA kAPI for device drivers. The existing kAPIs include:
>
> struct iommu_sva *iommu_sva_bind_device(struct device *dev,
> struct mm_struct *mm,
> void *drvdata);
> void iommu_sva_unbind_device(struct iommu_sva *handle);
> u32 iommu_sva_get_pasid(struct iommu_sva *handle);
This is not what we agreed the API should be. We agreed:
iommu_sva_domain_alloc()
iommu_attach_device_pasid()
iommu_detach_device_pasid()
Again, SVA should not be different from normal domain stuff.
Jason
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
