RE: [PATCH v6 08/12] iommu/sva: Use attach/detach_pasid_dev in SVA interfaces

[Tian, Kevin]

> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 1:17 PM
> 
> On 2022/5/12 13:01, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> 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.

can we just have unbind(domain, device)?

> 
> Anyway, I'd expect to achieve all these in two steps:
> 
> - sva and iopf refactoring, only iommu internal changes;
> - sva interface refactoring, only interface changes.
> 
> Does above work?
> 
> Best regards,
> baolu