> From: Baolu Lu <baolu...@linux.intel.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2022 10:32 AM
>
> On 2022/5/10 22:02, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 02:17:29PM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> >
> >> This adds a pair of common domain ops for this purpose and adds
> helpers
> >> to attach/detach a domain to/from a {device, PASID}.
> >
> > I wonder if this should not have a detach op - after discussing with
> > Robin we can see that detach_dev is not used in updated
> > drivers. Instead attach_dev acts as 'set_domain'
> >
> > So, it would be more symmetrical if attaching a blocking_domain to the
> > PASID was the way to 'detach'.
> >
> > This could be made straightforward by following the sketch I showed to
> > have a static, global blocing_domain and providing a pointer to it in
> > struct iommu_ops
> >
> > 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.
Thanks
Kevin
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
