Re: [PATCH v6 03/12] iommu: Add attach/detach_dev_pasid domain ops

From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>
Cc: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
	Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
	Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.com>,
	"Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
	Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>, Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
	"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
	"Pan, Jacob jun" <jacob.jun.pan@intel.com>,
	"iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org"
	<iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 03/12] iommu: Add attach/detach_dev_pasid domain ops
Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 09:02:40 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220511120240.GY49344@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yntrv+nq2t/IeVo2@myrica>

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 08:54:39AM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> > > > Then 'detach pasid' is:
> > > >
> > > > iommu_ops->blocking_domain->ops->attach_dev_pasid(domain, dev,
> > > pasid);
> > > >
> > > > And we move away from the notion of 'detach' and in the direction that
> > > > everything continuously has a domain set. PASID would logically
> > > > default to blocking_domain, though we wouldn't track this anywhere.
> > > 
> > > I am not sure whether we still need to keep the blocking domain concept
> > > when we are entering the new PASID world. Please allow me to wait and
> > > listen to more opinions.
> > > 
> > 
> > I'm with Jason on this direction. In concept after a PASID is detached it's
> > essentially blocked. Implementation-wise it doesn't prevent the iommu
> > driver from marking the PASID entry as non-present as doing in this
> > series instead of actually pointing to the empty page table of the block
> > domain. But api-wise it does make the entire semantics more consistent.
> 
> This is all internal to IOMMU so I don't think we should be concerned
> about API consistency. I prefer a straighforward detach() operation
> because that way IOMMU drivers don't have to keep track of which domain is
> attached to which PASID. That code can be factored into the IOMMU core.

Why would a driver need to keep additional tracking?

> In addition to clearing contexts, detach() also needs to invalidate TLBs,
> and for that the SMMU driver needs to know the old ASID (!= PASID) that
> was used by the context descriptor. We can certainly work around a missing
> detach() to implement this, but it will be convoluted.

It is not "missing" it is just renamed to blocking_domain->ops->set_dev_pasid()

The implementation of that function would be identical to
detach_dev_pasid.

Jason