On 12/11/2018 14:55, j...@8bytes.org wrote:
> Hi Jean-Philippe,
>
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 06:29:42PM +0000, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>> (1) My initial approach would have been to use the same page tables for
>> the default_domain and this new domain, but it might be precisely what
>> you were trying to avoid with this new proposal: a device attached to
>> two domains at the same time.
>
> My request was about the initial assumptions a device driver can make
> about a device. This assumptions is that DMA-API is set up and
> initialized for it, for everything else (like SVA) the device driver
> needs to take special action, like allocating an SVA domain and attaching
> the device to it.
>
> This should of course not break any IRQ setups for the device, and also
> enforcing an ordering is not a good and maintainable solution.
>
> So what you could do here is to either:
>
> 1) Save the needed IRQ mappings in some extra datastructure and
> duplicate it in the SVA domain. This also makes it easier to
> use the same SVA domain with multiple devices.
>
> 2) Just re-use the 'page-tables' from the default domain in the
> sva-domain. This needs to happen at attach-time, because at
> allocation time you don't know the device yet.
>
> I think 1) is the best solution, what do you think?
Right now 2) seems more feasible, because changes will be limited to the
IOMMU driver and don't spill in the dma-iommu layer. Maybe it will be
clearer to me once I write a prototype.
> Btw, things would be different if we could expose SVA through the
> DMA-API to drivers. In this case we could just make the default domain
> of type SVA and be done, but we are not there yet.
For the moment though, I think we should allow device drivers to use the
DMA-API at the same time as SVA. If a device driver has to map a
management ring buffer for example, it's much nicer to use dma_alloc as
usual rather than have them write their own DMA allocation routines.
Which is another reason to implement 2) above: the DMA-API would still
act on the default_domain, and attaching an "extended" domain augments
it with SVA features. Detaching from the device doesn't require copying
mappings back to the default domain. Does that sound OK?
Then if vfio-pci wants to use SVA, maybe we can make the UNMANAGED
domain support SVA by default? Otherwise introduce a UNMANAGED+ext
domain. Anyway, that's for later.
This is what I currently plan to add:
struct io_mm *io_mm;
struct iommu_domain *domain;
domain = iommu_alloc_ext_domain(bus);
/* Set an mm-exit callback to disable PASIDs. More attributes
could be added later to change the capabilities of the ext
domain */
iommu_domain_set_attr(domain, DOMAIN_ATTR_MM_EXIT_CB, &mm_exit);
/* Fails if the device doesn't support this domain type */
iommu_attach_device(domain, dev);
/* Same as SVA v3, except a domain instead of dev as argument */
io_mm = iommu_sva_bind_mm(domain, current->mm, ...);
/* on success, install the PASID in the device */
pasid = io_mm->pasid;
/* Do more work */
iommu_sva_unbind_mm(io_mm);
iommu_detach_device(domain, dev);
Thanks,
Jean
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
