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;
IronPort-SDR: kLSJgliNLTzQI7GwtyBQt7anvLb2PFnu3s1y1/OOQt85Amxb/dPUAj26nrK8lHfHQRs0aS6G24
 C30WmpseHflQ==
IronPort-SDR: Lf6yWT/H8h50QOveOXQVM6VtS+Nq3fk1GV0TN2dfbMmKdER1o1aCJgpa/GN1xZeyXZRlngFfYh
 8oqSEtCc00mg==
From:   "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com>
To:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>
CC:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>,
        Auger Eric <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
        "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.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" <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        "cgroups@vger.kernel.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>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>, "Wu, Hao" <hao.wu@intel.com>,
        "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@intel.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V4 05/18] iommu/ioasid: Redefine IOASID set and allocation
 APIs
Thread-Topic: [PATCH V4 05/18] iommu/ioasid: Redefine IOASID set and
 allocation APIs
Thread-Index: AQHXDZuc1/oaTFwUU0WheDxUmLBHiqqKkLIAgACg94CAAC72gIAAD04AgAADogCAAErUgIAETQEAgAOaswCAB7C3gIAAmFuAgADGxQCAAR7PEIAAZiYAgAECgOCAACyd0IAAWUMAgAASa2CAAAjaAIAAAHQwgAAm8oCAFdCAgIAAppUAgADsNgCAACqygIAHqReA
Date:   Wed, 21 Apr 2021 13:18:07 +0000
Message-ID: <BN6PR11MB406854F56D18E1187A2C98ACC3479@BN6PR11MB4068.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BN6PR11MB40688F5AA2323AB8CC8E65E7C37C9@BN6PR11MB4068.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
        <20210331124038.GE1463678@nvidia.com>
        <BN6PR11MB406854CAE9D7CE86BEAB3E23C37B9@BN6PR11MB4068.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
        <BN6PR11MB40687428F0D0F3B5F13EA3E0C37B9@BN6PR11MB4068.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
        <YGW27KFt9eQB9X2z@myrica>
        <BN6PR11MB4068171CD1D4B823515F7EFBC37B9@BN6PR11MB4068.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
        <20210401134236.GF1463678@nvidia.com>
        <BN6PR11MB4068C4DE7AF43D44DE70F4C1C37B9@BN6PR11MB4068.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
        <20210401160337.GJ1463678@nvidia.com>
        <4bea6eb9-08ad-4b6b-1e0f-c97ece58a078@redhat.com>
        <20210415230732.GG1370958@nvidia.com>   <20210416061258.325e762e@jacob-builder>
 <20210416094547.1774e1a3@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210416094547.1774e1a3@redhat.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
dlp-reaction: no-action
dlp-version: 11.5.1.3
dlp-product: dlpe-windows
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 600a13fc-732c-4689-f235-08d904c7e7ae
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 21 Apr 2021 13:18:08.0001
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 46c98d88-e344-4ed4-8496-4ed7712e255d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: CmzCTAR6JoqPvgQrLsYf+hH5Z4bWVL5YcNevJ9U12s/OoL9juETPL0ftUNng52hQmdDY5TuYPnYQf5gHyRjdhw==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR11MB1619
X-OriginatorOrg: intel.com
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Alex,

> From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 11:46 PM
[...]
> > This is not a tactic or excuse for not working on the new /dev/ioasid
> > interface. In fact, I believe we can benefit from the lessons learned
> > while completing the existing. This will give confidence to the new
> > interface. Thoughts?
>=20
> I understand a big part of Jason's argument is that we shouldn't be in
> the habit of creating duplicate interfaces, we should create one, well
> designed interfaces to share among multiple subsystems.  As new users
> have emerged, our solution needs to change to a common one rather than
> a VFIO specific one.  The IOMMU uAPI provides an abstraction, but at
> the wrong level, requiring userspace interfaces for each subsystem.
>=20
> Luckily the IOMMU uAPI is not really exposed as an actual uAPI, but
> that changes if we proceed to enable the interfaces to tunnel it
> through VFIO.
>=20
> The logical answer would therefore be that we don't make that
> commitment to the IOMMU uAPI if we believe now that it's fundamentally
> flawed.
>=20
> Ideally this new /dev/ioasid interface, and making use of it as a VFIO
> IOMMU backend, should replace type1.=20

yeah, just a double check, I think this also requires a new set of uAPIs
(e.g. new MAP/UNMAP), which means the current VFIO IOMMU type1 related ioct=
ls
would be deprecated in future. right?

> Type1 will live on until that
> interface gets to parity, at which point we may deprecate type1, but it
> wouldn't make sense to continue to expand type1 in the same direction
> as we intend /dev/ioasid to take over in the meantime, especially if it
> means maintaining an otherwise dead uAPI.  Thanks,

understood.

Regards,
Yi Liu