Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] iommu/vt-d: Separate page request queue from SVM

[Baolu Lu]

On 9/15/24 9:49 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 01:49:44PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
> > On 2024/9/14 10:53, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > > From: Baolu Lu<baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2024 9:18 AM
> > > >
> > > > On 9/14/24 8:52 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > > > > From: Joel Granados via B4 Relay
> > > > > > <devnull+j.granados.samsung.com@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Joel Granados<j.granados@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IO page faults are no longer dependent on CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU_SVM.
> > > > > > Move
> > > > > > all Page Request Queue (PRQ) functions that handle prq events to a new
> > > > > > file in drivers/iommu/intel/prq.c. The page_req_des struct is now
> > > > > > declared in drivers/iommu/intel/prq.c.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No functional changes are intended. This is a preparation patch to
> > > > > > enable the use of IO page faults outside the SVM/PASID use cases.
> > > > > Do we want to guard it under a new config option e.g.
> > > > > CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU_IOPF? it's unnecessary to allocate resources
> > > > > for the majority usages which don't require IOPF.
> > > > >
> > > > > Baolu?
> > > > The OS builder doesn't know if Linux will run on a platform with PRI-
> > > > capable devices. They'll probably always enable this option if we
> > > > provide it.
> > > hmm then why do we need a SVM option? In reality I haven't seen
> > > a platform which supports IOPF but no pasid/SVM. so the reason
> > > for whether to have an option should be same between IOPF/SVM.
> > >
> > > IMHO the point of options is to allow reducing footprint of the kernel
> > > image and many options are probably always enabled in distributions...
> > To be honest, I would hope to remove the SVM option some day. It's
> > nothing special except listening to an external notification and
> > synchronize the caches when the page table is updated. It's common to
> > all cases where a page table is shared between the IOMMU and another
> > component.
> >
> > As for CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU_IOPF, my suggestion is that we don't need to
> > add any unnecessary options unless we see a real need.
> You could possibly bundle the SVA and IOPF options together
>
> I called the new option on the ARM side CONFIG_ARM_SMMU_V3_IOMMUFD
> which seems like a reasonable cut point against embedded vs server.

Probably I will consider this after this series. This is not intel iommu
specific, hence it's better to make it consistent for all drivers.

Thanks,
baolu