On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 05:58:41AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > From: Nicolin Chen <nicol...@nvidia.com> > > Sent: Friday, May 9, 2025 11:03 AM > > > > Add IOMMUFD_OBJ_HW_QUEUE with an iommufd_hw_queue structure, > > representing > > a HW-accelerated queue type of IOMMU's physical queue that can be passed > > through to a user space VM for direct hardware control, such as: > > - NVIDIA's Virtual Command Queue > > - AMD vIOMMU's Command Buffer, Event Log Buffer, and PPR Log Buffer > > > > Introduce an allocator iommufd_hw_queue_alloc(). And add a pair of > > viommu > > ops for iommufd to forward user space ioctls to IOMMU drivers. > > > > Given that the first user of this HW QUEUE (tegra241-cmdqv) will need to > > ensure the queue memory to be physically contiguous, add a flag property > > in iommufd_viommu_ops and > > IOMMUFD_VIOMMU_FLAG_HW_QUEUE_READS_PA to allow > > driver to flag it so that the core will validate the physical pages of a > > given guest queue. > > 'READS' is confusing here. What about xxx_CONTIG_PAS?
Combining Jason's first comments here: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/20250515160620.gj382...@nvidia.com/ So, pinning should be optional too. And I think there would be unlikely a case where HW needs contiguous physical pages while not requiring to pin the pages, right? So, we need an flag that could indicate to do both tests. Yet, "xxx_CONTIG_PAS" doesn't sound very fitting, compared to this "IOMMUFD_VIOMMU_FLAG_HW_QUEUE_READS_PA". Perhaps, we should just add some comments to clarify a bit. Or do you have some better naming? Thanks Nicolin
