lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] iommu: Bind process address spaces to devices
    On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 01:10:55 +0000
    "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com> wrote:

    > > From: Jacob Pan [mailto:jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com]
    > > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 5:41 AM
    > >
    > > On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 12:17:43 +0100
    > > Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> wrote:
    > >
    > > >
    > > > How about a 'struct iommu_sva' with an iommu-private definition
    > > > that is returned by this function:
    > > >
    > > > struct iommu_sva *iommu_sva_bind_device(struct device
    > > > *dev, struct mm_struct *mm);
    > > >
    > > Just trying to understand how to use this API.
    > > So if we bind the same mm to two different devices, we should get
    > > two different iommu_sva handle, right?
    > > I think intel-svm still needs a flag argument for supervisor pasid
    > > etc. Other than that, I think both interface should work for vt-d.
    > >
    > > Another question is that for nested SVA, we will need to bind guest
    > > mm. Do you think we should try to reuse this or have it separate? I
    > > am working on a separate API for now.
    > >
    >
    > It has to be different. Host doesn't know guest mm.
    >
    > Also note that from virtualization p.o.v we just focus on 'nested
    > translation' in host side. The 1st level may point to guest CPU
    > page table (SVA), or IOVA page table. In that manner, the API
    > (as currently defined in your series) is purely about setting up
    > nested translation on VFIO assigned device.
    >
    Sounds good, will keep them separate.

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2019-02-28 19:51    [W:6.983 / U:0.000 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site