Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] iommu/vt-d: Implement domain ops for attach_dev_pasid

[Baolu Lu]

On 2022/5/12 01:25, Jacob Pan wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> On Wed, 11 May 2022 14:00:25 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 10:02:16AM -0700, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > > > > If not global, perhaps we could have a list of pasids (e.g. xarray)
> > > > > attached to the device_domain_info. The TLB flush logic would just
> > > > > go through the list w/o caring what the PASIDs are for. Does it
> > > > > make sense to you?
> > > >
> > > > Sort of, but we shouldn't duplicate xarrays - the group already has
> > > > this xarray - need to find some way to allow access to it from the
> > > > driver.
> > > >    
> > > I am not following,  here are the PASIDs for devTLB flush which is per
> > > device. Why group?
> >
> > Because group is where the core code stores it.
> I see, with singleton group. I guess I can let dma-iommu code call
>
> iommu_attach_dma_pasid {
> 	iommu_attach_device_pasid();
> Then the PASID will be stored in the group xa.
> The flush code can retrieve PASIDs from device_domain_info.device -> group
> -> pasid_array.
> Thanks for pointing it out, I missed the new pasid_array.
> > > We could retrieve PASIDs from the device PASID table but xa would be
> > > more efficient.
> > >    
> > > > > > > Are you suggesting the dma-iommu API should be called
> > > > > > > iommu_set_dma_pasid instead of iommu_attach_dma_pasid?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No that API is Ok - the driver ops API should be 'set' not
> > > > > > attach/detach
> > > > > Sounds good, this operation has little in common with
> > > > > domain_ops.dev_attach_pasid() used by SVA domain. So I will add a
> > > > > new domain_ops.dev_set_pasid()
> > > >
> > > > What? No, their should only be one operation, 'dev_set_pasid' and it
> > > > is exactly the same as the SVA operation. It configures things so that
> > > > any existing translation on the PASID is removed and the PASID
> > > > translates according to the given domain.
> > > >
> > > > SVA given domain or UNMANAGED given domain doesn't matter to the
> > > > higher level code. The driver should implement per-domain ops as
> > > > required to get the different behaviors.
> > > Perhaps some code to clarify, we have
> > > sva_domain_ops.dev_attach_pasid() = intel_svm_attach_dev_pasid;
> > > default_domain_ops.dev_attach_pasid() = intel_iommu_attach_dev_pasid;
> >
> > Yes, keep that structure
> >   
> > > Consolidate pasid programming into dev_set_pasid() then called by both
> > > intel_svm_attach_dev_pasid() and intel_iommu_attach_dev_pasid(), right?
> > >   
> >
> > I was only suggesting that really dev_attach_pasid() op is misnamed,
> > it should be called set_dev_pasid() and act like a set, not a paired
> > attach/detach - same as the non-PASID ops.
> Got it. Perhaps another patch to rename, Baolu?

Yes. I can rename it in my sva series if others are also happy with this
naming.

Best regards,
baolu