From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752241AbdJLJs5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Oct 2017 05:48:57 -0400 Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.190]:7984 "EHLO szxga04-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751963AbdJLJsy (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Oct 2017 05:48:54 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/16] iommu: introduce iommu invalidate API function To: Jean-Philippe Brucker , Joerg Roedel , "Liu, Yi L" References: <1507244624-39189-1-git-send-email-jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> <1507244624-39189-4-git-send-email-jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> <20171010133542.juag7cwbivlb56sl@8bytes.org> <20171010150953.4095a045@jacob-builder> <20171011095126.GD30803@8bytes.org> <20171011121534.GG30803@8bytes.org> <3cdbce19-9264-b2d0-745b-8d32d5b8cfe7@arm.com> CC: "Lan, Tianyu" , "Liu, Yi L" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Wysocki, Rafael J" , LKML , "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" , David Woodhouse From: Bob Liu Message-ID: <541498d5-0478-0b9a-6c01-12f7dc30ebf3@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 17:38:30 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3cdbce19-9264-b2d0-745b-8d32d5b8cfe7@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.142.83.150] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020203.59DF38DE.0048,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2014-11-16 11:51:01, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 76dbb0b40fcd65820044ab05843a65a5 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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