On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 09:40:14AM +0000, Liu, Yi L wrote:

> > See previous discussion with Kevin. If I understand correctly, you expect a 
> > shared
> > L2 table if vDPA and VFIO device are using the same PASID.
> 
> L2 table sharing is not mandatory. The mapping is the same, but no need to
> assume L2 tables are shared. Especially for VFIO/vDPA devices. Even within
> a passthru framework, like VFIO, if the attributes of backend IOMMU are not
> the same, the L2 page table are not shared, but the mapping is the same.

I think not being able to share the PASID shows exactly why this VFIO
centric approach is bad.

Jason
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu

Reply via email to