On 2017/10/11 20:48, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > On 11/10/17 13:15, Joerg Roedel wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:54:52AM +0000, Liu, Yi L wrote: >>> I didn't quite get 'iovm' mean. Can you explain a bit about the idea? >> >> It's short for IO Virtual Memory, basically a replacement term for 'svm' >> that is not ambiguous (afaik) and not specific to Intel. > > I wonder if SVM originated in OpenCL first, rather than intel? That's why > I'm using it, but it is ambiguous. I'm not sure IOVM is precise enough > though, since the name could as well be used without shared tables, for > classical map/unmap and IOVAs. Kevin Tian suggested SVA "Shared Virtual > Addressing" last time, which is a little more clear than SVM and isn't > used elsewhere in the kernel either. >
The process "vaddr" can be the same as "IOVA" by using the classical map/unmap way. This is also a kind of share virtual memory/address(except have to pin physical memory). How to distinguish these two different implementation of "share virtual memory/address"? -- Regards, Liubo