From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com [134.134.136.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A388A44 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2023 01:45:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1686275115; x=1717811115; h=message-id:date:mime-version:cc:subject:to:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=e61UV5SvMM3vHP5TViMCNaMJKnEqTUpRfgGhvY+y4Ak=; b=K78vD3OFIbCDQuqvj31+wXXpc7oyg6IvlTHmnxBhP02mfyUt7Ef5vbzp fmnG56mN5xK8WTB7rMzbFfjS0aWWF7aKQrOjyjeBWhhwKesI5gaCOtFIL MfxLCVHB0lk/ABnIlGrEQ+SBZMRDrBpNOj27Xa9myXTK3nM1iftg58LcO OhYIP5P6iXOmldNO5oMzNZTDmSniYZaFXDQ5x/4U+LWQaVFAUtHTQ7QAG f8AWhCu2bNZW8GuZxYxvsf7DVHKaeHxk/xvN/44FXvGnAlUyuvabxEN7b I//fF4o4az5WqPWZVVGK2FI8TVNJEqYQIXQFG8tlbxFzyG0izGiY1TiFX Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10735"; a="423364539" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.00,228,1681196400"; d="scan'208";a="423364539" Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Jun 2023 18:45:14 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10735"; a="854566570" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.00,228,1681196400"; d="scan'208";a="854566570" Received: from allen-box.sh.intel.com (HELO [10.239.159.127]) ([10.239.159.127]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Jun 2023 18:45:11 -0700 Message-ID: <081931a1-204a-8126-5b75-22d35dedef8d@linux.intel.com> Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2023 09:44:10 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: iommu@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0 Cc: baolu.lu@linux.intel.com, Michael Shavit , Will Deacon , Robin Murphy , Joerg Roedel , jean-philippe@linaro.org, nicolinc@nvidia.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, iommu@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 14/18] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Support domains with shared CDs Content-Language: en-US To: Jason Gunthorpe References: <20230606120854.4170244-1-mshavit@google.com> <20230606120854.4170244-15-mshavit@google.com> From: Baolu Lu In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/8/23 9:39 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 10:39:23AM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote: >> On 6/7/23 7:59 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 12:06:07AM +0530, Michael Shavit wrote: >>>>> What we definately shouldn't do is try to have different SVA >>>>> iommu_domain's pointing at the same ASID. That is again making SVA >>>>> special, which we are trying to get away from 😄 >>>> Fwiw, this change is preserving the status-quo in that regard; >>>> arm-smmu-v3-sva.c is already doing this. But yes, I agree that >>>> resolving the limitation is a better long term solution... and >>>> something I can try to look at further. >>> I suppose we also don't really have a entirely clear picture what >>> allocating multiple SVA domains should even do in the iommu driver. >>> >>> The driver would like to share the ASID, but things are much cleaner >>> for everything if the driver model has ASID 1:1 with the iommu_domain. >> This means that each ASID should be mapped to a single IOMMU domain. >> This is conceptually right as iommu_domain represents a hardware page >> table. For SVA, it's an mm_struct. >> >> So in my mind, each sva_domain should have a 1:1 relationship with an >> mm_struct. > If we want to support multiple iommu drivers then we should support > multiple iommu_domains per mm_struct so that each driver can have its > own. In this world if each instance wants its own iommu_domain it is > not a big deal. > > Drivers that can share iommu_domains across instances should probably > also share sva iommu_domains across instances. > > Most real systems have only one iommu driver and we'd like the good > iommu drivers to be able to share domains across instances, so we'd > expect only 1 iommu_domain per mm struct. Yes. You are right. I overlooked the multiple-drivers case. So we stay on the same page now. Best regards, baolu