Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 12 Sep 2022 15:55:02 -0700
From:   Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@intel.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc:     Ashok Raj <ashok_raj@linux.intel.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, <x86@kernel.org>,
        Kostya Serebryany <kcc@google.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@gmail.com>,
        "Alexander Potapenko" <glider@google.com>,
        Taras Madan <tarasmadan@google.com>,
        "Dmitry Vyukov" <dvyukov@google.com>,
        "H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
        <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>, jacob.jun.pan@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv8 00/11] Linear Address Masking enabling
Message-ID: <20220912155502.0087a993@jacob-builder>
In-Reply-To: <356d4ad1-f7d8-b8ff-3b63-819a64bf5b9f@intel.com>
References: <20220830010104.1282-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
        <YxDvpLb77lwb8zaT@araj-dh-work>
        <20220904003952.fheisiloilxh3mpo@box.shutemov.name>
        <Yxtk4gMbcVgTKzKg@araj-dh-work>
        <20220912133935.3bb3e247@jacob-builder>
        <356d4ad1-f7d8-b8ff-3b63-819a64bf5b9f@intel.com>
Organization: OTC
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi Dave,

On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 14:41:56 -0700, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
wrote:

> On 9/12/22 13:39, Jacob Pan wrote:
> >>> +	if (pasid_valid(mm->pasid) && !forced) {  
> > I don't think this works since we have lazy pasid free.  for example,
> > after all the devices did sva_unbind, mm->pasid  we'll remain valid
> > until mmdrop(). LAM  should be supported in this case.  
> 
> Nah, it works fine.
> It just means that the rules are "you can't do LAM if your process
> *EVER* got a PASID" instead of "you can't do LAM if you are actively
> using your PASID".
Sure it works if you change the rules, but this case need to documented.

> 
> We knew that PASID use would be a one-way trip for a process when we
> moved to the simplified implementation.  This is just more fallout from
> that.  It's fine.
> 
Is LAM also a one-way trip?

> > Perhaps, we could introduce another prctl flag for SVA, PR_GET_SVA?
> > Both iommu driver and LAM can set/query the flag. LAM applications may
> > not be the only ones want to know if share virtual addressing is  on.  
> 
> I don't think it's a good idea to add yet more UABI around this issue.
> Won't the IOMMU folks eventually get their hardware in line with LAM?
> Isn't this situation temporary?


Thanks,

Jacob