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;
Message-ID: <cd2db502-90a7-7adb-4948-eafc013c687e@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Jul 2023 10:49:12 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Cc:     baolu.lu@linux.intel.com, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
        Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>,
        "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
        "iommu@lists.linux.dev" <iommu@lists.linux.dev>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] iommu: Use fault cookie to store iopf_param
Content-Language: en-US
To:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>
References: <20230711010642.19707-1-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <20230711010642.19707-10-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <20230711150249.62917dad@jacob-builder>
 <e26db44c-ec72-085d-13ee-597237ba2134@linux.intel.com>
 <BN9PR11MB527640E6FBD5271E8AF9D59B8C37A@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <cf793119-591f-19b5-b708-45c6f3eadc79@linux.intel.com>
 <BN9PR11MB527682E9AD97033D694A564B8C37A@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From:   Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <BN9PR11MB527682E9AD97033D694A564B8C37A@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2023/7/13 16:01, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2023 11:44 AM
>>
>> On 2023/7/13 11:24, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>>> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 11:13 AM
>>>>
>>>> On 2023/7/12 6:02, Jacob Pan wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 09:06:42 +0800, Lu Baolu<baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> @@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ int iommu_queue_iopf(struct iommu_fault
>> *fault,
>>>>>> struct device *dev)
>>>>>>     	 * As long as we're holding param->lock, the queue can't be
>>>>>> unlinked
>>>>>>     	 * from the device and therefore cannot disappear.
>>>>>>     	 */
>>>>>> -	iopf_param = param->iopf_param;
>>>>>> +	iopf_param = iommu_get_device_fault_cookie(dev, 0);
>>>>> I am not sure I understand how does it know the cookie type is
>> iopf_param
>>>>> for PASID 0?
>>>>>
>>>>> Between IOPF and IOMMUFD use of the cookie, cookie types are
>> different,
>>>>> right?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The fault cookie is managed by the code that delivers or handles the
>>>> faults. The sva and IOMMUFD paths are exclusive.
>>>>
>>>
>>> what about siov? A siov-capable device can support sva and iommufd
>>> simultaneously.
>>
>> For siov case, the pasid should be global. RID and each pasid are still
>> exclusive, so I don't see any problem. Did I overlook anything?
>>
> 
> they are exclusive but it's weird to see some pasids (for sva) on this
> device are tracked by slot#0 while other pasids (for iommufd) occupies
> per-pasid slot.
> 
> why not generalizing them given you name it as "per-pasid fault cookie"?

Yeah! Get your point now. At least the partial list should be per-pasid.

Let me invest more time on this.

Best regards,
baolu