On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 03:16:22AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> Hi, Alex and Jason (G),
> How about your opinion for this new proposal? For now looks both
> Jason (W) and Jean are OK with this direction and more discussions
> are possibly required for the new /dev/ioasid interface. Internally 
> we're doing a quick prototype to see any unforeseen issue with this
> separation. 

Assuming VDPA and VFIO will be the only two users so duplicating
everything only twice sounds pretty restricting to me.

> > Second, IOMMU nested translation is a per IOMMU domain
> > capability. Since IOMMU domains are managed by VFIO/VDPA
> >  (alloc/free domain, attach/detach device, set/get domain attribute,
> > etc.), reporting/enabling the nesting capability is an natural
> > extension to the domain uAPI of existing passthrough frameworks.
> > Actually, VFIO already includes a nesting enable interface even
> > before this series. So it doesn't make sense to generalize this uAPI
> > out.

The subsystem that obtains an IOMMU domain for a device would have to
register it with an open FD of the '/dev/sva'. That is the connection
between the two subsystems. It would be some simple kernel internal

  sva = get_sva_from_file(fd);
  sva_register_device_to_pasid(sva, pasid, pci_device, iommu_domain);

Not sure why this is a roadblock?

How would this be any different from having some kernel libsva that
VDPA and VFIO would both rely on?

You don't plan to just open code all this stuff in VFIO, do you?

> > Then the tricky part comes with the remaining operations (3/4/5),
> > which are all backed by iommu_ops thus effective only within an
> > IOMMU domain. To generalize them, the first thing is to find a way
> > to associate the sva_FD (opened through generic /dev/sva) with an
> > IOMMU domain that is created by VFIO/VDPA. The second thing is
> > to replicate {domain<->device/subdevice} association in /dev/sva
> > path because some operations (e.g. page fault) is triggered/handled
> > per device/subdevice. Therefore, /dev/sva must provide both per-
> > domain and per-device uAPIs similar to what VFIO/VDPA already
> > does. 

Yes, the point here was to move the general APIs out of VFIO and into
a sharable location. So, of course one would expect some duplication
during the transition period.

> > Moreover, mapping page fault to subdevice requires pre-
> > registering subdevice fault data to IOMMU layer when binding
> > guest page table, while such fault data can be only retrieved from
> > parent driver through VFIO/VDPA.

Not sure what this means, page fault should be tied to the PASID, any
hookup needed for that should be done in-kernel when the device is
connected to the PASID.

> > space but they may be organized in multiple IOMMU domains based
> > on their bus type. How (should we let) the userspace know the
> > domain information and open an sva_FD for each domain is the main
> > problem here.

Why is one sva_FD per iommu domain required? The HW can attach the
same PASID to multiple iommu domains, right?

> > In the end we just realized that doing such generalization doesn't
> > really lead to a clear design and instead requires tight coordination
> > between /dev/sva and VFIO/VDPA for almost every new uAPI
> > (especially about synchronization when the domain/device
> > association is changed or when the device/subdevice is being reset/
> > drained). Finally it may become a usability burden to the userspace
> > on proper use of the two interfaces on the assigned device.

If you have a list of things that needs to be done to attach a PCI
device to a PASID then of course they should be tidy kernel APIs
already, and not just hard wired into VFIO.

The worst outcome would be to have VDPA and VFIO have to different
ways to do all of this with a different set of bugs. Bug fixes/new
features in VFIO won't flow over to VDPA.

iommu mailing list

Reply via email to