Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 Mar 2021 18:19:35 -0400
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@intel.com>
Cc:     Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com>, mkoutny@suse.com,
        rdunlap@infradead.org, thomas.lendacky@amd.com,
        brijesh.singh@amd.com, jon.grimm@amd.com, eric.vantassell@amd.com,
        pbonzini@redhat.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, frankja@linux.ibm.com,
        borntraeger@de.ibm.com, corbet@lwn.net, seanjc@google.com,
        vkuznets@redhat.com, wanpengli@tencent.com, jmattson@google.com,
        joro@8bytes.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
        bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com, gingell@google.com,
        rientjes@google.com, dionnaglaze@google.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>,
        "jean-philippe@linaro.org" <jean-philippe@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 2/2] cgroup: sev: Miscellaneous cgroup documentation.
Message-ID: <YE/ddx5+ToNsgUF0@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20210303185513.27e18fce@jacob-builder>
 <YEB8i6Chq4K/GGF6@google.com>
 <YECfhCJtHUL9cB2L@slm.duckdns.org>
 <20210312125821.22d9bfca@jacob-builder>
 <YEvZ4muXqiSScQ8i@google.com>
 <20210312145904.4071a9d6@jacob-builder>
 <YEyR9181Qgzt+Ps9@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <20210313085701.1fd16a39@jacob-builder>
 <YEz+8HbfkbGgG5Tm@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <20210315151155.383a7e6e@jacob-builder>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210315151155.383a7e6e@jacob-builder>
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 03:11:55PM -0700, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > Migration itself doesn't have restrictions but all resources are
> > distributed on the same hierarchy, so the controllers are supposed to
> > follow the same conventions that can be implemented by all controllers.
> > 
> Got it, I guess that is the behavior required by the unified hierarchy.
> Cgroup v1 would be ok? But I am guessing we are not extending on v1?

A new cgroup1 only controller is unlikely to be accpeted.

> The IOASIDs are programmed into devices to generate DMA requests tagged
> with them. The IOMMU has a per device IOASID table with each entry has two
> pointers:
>  - the PGD of the guest process.
>  - the PGD of the host process
> 
> The result of this 2 stage/nested translation is that we can share virtual
> address (SVA) between guest process and DMA. The host process needs to
> allocate multiple IOASIDs since one IOASID is needed for each guest process
> who wants SVA.
> 
> The DMA binding among device-IOMMU-process is setup via a series of user
> APIs (e.g. via VFIO).
> 
> If a process calls fork(), the children does not inherit the IOASIDs and
> their bindings. Children who wish to use SVA has to call those APIs to
> establish the binding for themselves.
> 
> Therefore, if a host process allocates 10 IOASIDs then does a
> fork()/clone(), it cannot charge 10 IOASIDs in the new cgroup. i.e. the 10
> IOASIDs stays with the process wherever it goes.
> 
> I feel this fit in the domain model, true?

I still don't get where migration is coming into the picture. Who's
migrating where?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun