On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 12:06:10PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 03:33:21PM +1100, david@gibson.dropbear.id.au wrote:
> 
> > > If the HW can attach multiple non-overlapping IOAS's to the same
> > > device then the HW is routing to the correct IOAS by using the address
> > > bits. This is not much different from the prior discussion we had
> > > where we were thinking of the PASID as an 80 bit address
> > 
> > Ah... that might be a workable approach.  And it even helps me get my
> > head around multiple attachment which I was struggling with before.
> > 
> > So, the rule would be that you can attach multiple IOASes to a device,
> > as long as none of them overlap.  The non-overlapping could be because
> > each IOAS covers a disjoint address range, or it could be because
> > there's some attached information - such as a PASID - to disambiguate.
> 
> Right exactly - it is very parallel to PASID
> 
> And obviously HW support is required to have multiple page table
> pointers per RID - which sounds like PPC does (high/low pointer?)

Hardware support is require *in the IOMMU*.  Nothing (beyond regular
64-bit DMA support) is required in the endpoint devices.  That's not
true of PASID.

> > What remains a question is where the disambiguating information comes
> > from in each case: does it come from properties of the IOAS,
> > propertues of the device, or from extra parameters supplied at attach
> > time.  IIUC, the current draft suggests it always comes at attach time
> > for the PASID information.  Obviously the more consistency we can have
> > here the better.
> 
> From a generic view point I'd say all are fair game. It is up to the
> IOMMU driver to take the requested set of IOAS's, the "at attachment"
> information (like PASID) and decide what to do, or fail.

Ok, that's a model that makes sense to me.

> > I can also see an additional problem in implementation, once we start
> > looking at hot-adding devices to existing address spaces.  
> 
> I won't pretend to guess how to implement this :) Just from a modeling
> perspective is something that works logically. If the kernel
> implementation is too hard then PPC should do one of the other ideas.
> 
> Personally I'd probably try for a nice multi-domain attachment model
> like PASID and not try to create/destroy domains.

I don't really follow what you mean by that.

> As I said in my last email I think it is up to each IOMMU HW driver to
> make these decisions, the iommufd framework just provides a
> standardized API toward the attaching driver that the IOMMU HW must
> fit into.
> 
> Jason
> 

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson