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;
Subject: Re: [RFC] /dev/ioasid uAPI proposal
To:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
        Liu Yi L <yi.l.liu@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     "Alex Williamson (alex.williamson@redhat.com)\"\"" 
        <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
References: <MWHPR11MB1886422D4839B372C6AB245F8C239@MWHPR11MB1886.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <f510f916-e91c-236d-e938-513a5992d3b5@redhat.com>
 <20210531164118.265789ee@yiliu-dev>
 <78ee2638-1a03-fcc8-50a5-81040f677e69@redhat.com>
 <20210601113152.6d09e47b@yiliu-dev>
 <164ee532-17b0-e180-81d3-12d49b82ac9f@redhat.com>
 <64898584-a482-e6ac-fd71-23549368c508@linux.intel.com>
 <429d9c2f-3597-eb29-7764-fad3ec9a934f@redhat.com>
 <MWHPR11MB1886FC7A46837588254794048C3E9@MWHPR11MB1886.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <05d7f790-870d-5551-1ced-86926a0aa1a6@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 1 Jun 2021 14:07:05 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR11MB1886FC7A46837588254794048C3E9@MWHPR11MB1886.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: bulk


在 2021/6/1 下午1:42, Tian, Kevin 写道:
>> From: Jason Wang
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 1:30 PM
>>
>> 在 2021/6/1 下午1:23, Lu Baolu 写道:
>>> Hi Jason W,
>>>
>>> On 6/1/21 1:08 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>> 2) If yes, what's the reason for not simply use the fd opened from
>>>>>> /dev/ioas. (This is the question that is not answered) and what
>>>>>> happens
>>>>>> if we call GET_INFO for the ioasid_fd?
>>>>>> 3) If not, how GET_INFO work?
>>>>> oh, missed this question in prior reply. Personally, no special reason
>>>>> yet. But using ID may give us opportunity to customize the management
>>>>> of the handle. For one, better lookup efficiency by using xarray to
>>>>> store the allocated IDs. For two, could categorize the allocated IDs
>>>>> (parent or nested). GET_INFO just works with an input FD and an ID.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure I get this, for nesting cases you can still make the
>>>> child an fd.
>>>>
>>>> And a question still, under what case we need to create multiple
>>>> ioasids on a single ioasid fd?
>>> One possible situation where multiple IOASIDs per FD could be used is
>>> that devices with different underlying IOMMU capabilities are sharing a
>>> single FD. In this case, only devices with consistent underlying IOMMU
>>> capabilities could be put in an IOASID and multiple IOASIDs per FD could
>>> be applied.
>>>
>>> Though, I still not sure about "multiple IOASID per-FD" vs "multiple
>>> IOASID FDs" for such case.
>>
>> Right, that's exactly my question. The latter seems much more easier to
>> be understood and implemented.
>>
> A simple reason discussed in previous thread - there could be 1M's
> I/O address spaces per device while #FD's are precious resource.


Is the concern for ulimit or performance? Note that we had

#define NR_OPEN_MAX ~0U

And with the fd semantic, you can do a lot of other stuffs: close on 
exec, passing via SCM_RIGHTS.

For the case of 1M, I would like to know what's the use case for a 
single process to handle 1M+ address spaces?


> So this RFC treats fd as a container of address spaces which is each
> tagged by an IOASID.


If the container and address space is 1:1 then the container seems useless.

Thanks


>
> Thanks
> Kevin