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 firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu