Re: [PATCH v6 08/12] iommu/sva: Use attach/detach_pasid_dev in SVA interfaces

From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
Cc: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@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 08/12] iommu/sva: Use attach/detach_pasid_dev in SVA interfaces
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 08:48:44 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220512114844.GT49344@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <64954f2d-2274-410e-269c-84efc0635633@linux.intel.com>

On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 01:17:08PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
> On 2022/5/12 13:01, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 11:03 AM
> > > 
> > > On 2022/5/11 22:53, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > > > Also, given the current arrangement it might make sense to have a
> > > > > > struct iommu_domain_sva given that no driver is wrappering this in
> > > > > > something else.
> > > > > Fair enough. How about below wrapper?
> > > > > 
> > > > > +struct iommu_sva_domain {
> > > > > +       /*
> > > > > +        * Common iommu domain header,*must*  be put at the top
> > > > > +        * of the structure.
> > > > > +        */
> > > > > +       struct iommu_domain domain;
> > > > > +       struct mm_struct *mm;
> > > > > +       struct iommu_sva bond;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > 
> > > > > The refcount is wrapped in bond.
> > > > I'm still not sure that bond is necessary
> > > 
> > > "bond" is the sva handle that the device drivers get through calling
> > > iommu_sva_bind().
> > > 
> > 
> > 'bond' was required before because we didn't have a domain to wrap
> > the page table at that time.
> > 
> > Now we have a domain and it is 1:1 associated to bond. Probably
> > make sense now by just returning the domain as the sva handle
> > instead?
> 
> It also includes the device information that the domain has been
> attached. So the sva_unbind() looks like this:
> 
> /**
>  * iommu_sva_unbind_device() - Remove a bond created with
> iommu_sva_bind_device
>  * @handle: the handle returned by iommu_sva_bind_device()
>  *
>  * Put reference to a bond between device and address space. The device
> should
>  * not be issuing any more transaction for this PASID. All outstanding page
>  * requests for this PASID must have been flushed to the IOMMU.
>  */
> void iommu_sva_unbind_device(struct iommu_sva *handle)
> 
> It's fine to replace the iommu_sva with iommu_sva_domain for sva handle,
> if we can include the device in the unbind() interface.

Why would we have a special unbind for SVA?

SVA should not different from normal domains it should use the normal
detach flow too.

Jason