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;
Date:   Thu, 25 Mar 2021 11:21:40 +0100
From:   Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>
To:     Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
        Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>, Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
        Wu Hao <hao.wu@intel.com>, Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 05/18] iommu/ioasid: Redefine IOASID set and
 allocation APIs
Message-ID: <YFxkNEz3THJKzW0b@myrica>
References: <20210318172234.3e8c34f7@jacob-builder>
 <YFR10eeDVf5ZHV5l@myrica>
 <20210319124645.GP2356281@nvidia.com>
 <YFSqDNJ5yagk4eO+@myrica>
 <20210319135432.GT2356281@nvidia.com>
 <20210319112221.5123b984@jacob-builder>
 <YFhiMLR35WWMW/Hu@myrica>
 <20210324100246.4e6b8aa1@jacob-builder>
 <20210324170338.GM2356281@nvidia.com>
 <20210324151230.466fd47a@jacob-builder>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210324151230.466fd47a@jacob-builder>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 03:12:30PM -0700, Jacob Pan wrote:
> Hi Jason,
> 
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 14:03:38 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:02:46AM -0700, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > > > Also wondering about device driver allocating auxiliary domains for
> > > > their private use, to do iommu_map/unmap on private PASIDs (a clean
> > > > replacement to super SVA, for example). Would that go through the
> > > > same path as /dev/ioasid and use the cgroup of current task?  
> > >
> > > For the in-kernel private use, I don't think we should restrict based on
> > > cgroup, since there is no affinity to user processes. I also think the
> > > PASID allocation should just use kernel API instead of /dev/ioasid. Why
> > > would user space need to know the actual PASID # for device private
> > > domains? Maybe I missed your idea?  
> > 
> > There is not much in the kernel that isn't triggered by a process, I
> > would be careful about the idea that there is a class of users that
> > can consume a cgroup controlled resource without being inside the
> > cgroup.
> > 
> > We've got into trouble before overlooking this and with something
> > greenfield like PASID it would be best built in to the API to prevent
> > a mistake. eg accepting a cgroup or process input to the allocator.
> > 
> Make sense. But I think we only allow charging the current cgroup, how about
> I add the following to ioasid_alloc():
> 
> 	misc_cg = get_current_misc_cg();
> 	ret = misc_cg_try_charge(MISC_CG_RES_IOASID, misc_cg, 1);
> 	if (ret) {
> 		put_misc_cg(misc_cg);
> 		return ret;
> 	}

Does that allow PASID allocation during driver probe, in kernel_init or
modprobe context?

Thanks,
Jean