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: <84ee4ce8-8589-68da-b105-f96c961ade16@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Aug 2023 09:23:23 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.14.0
Cc:     baolu.lu@linux.intel.com, Tina Zhang <tina.zhang@intel.com>,
        Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        Michael Shavit <mshavit@google.com>, iommu@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Share sva domains with all devices bound to a mm
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
References: <20230808074944.7825-1-tina.zhang@intel.com>
 <184044ad-880f-5452-727b-f7fd18330c22@linux.intel.com>
 <ZNOmsfE3Eheuelv8@ziepe.ca>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZNOmsfE3Eheuelv8@ziepe.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2023/8/9 22:46, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 08:18:18AM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
>> On 2023/8/8 15:49, Tina Zhang wrote:
>>> A sva domain's lifetime begins with binding a device to a mm and ends
>>> by releasing all the bound devices from that sva domain. Technically,
>>> there could be more than one sva domain identified by the mm PASID for
>>> the use of bound devices issuing DMA transactions.
>>>
>>> To support mm PASID 1:n with sva domains, each mm needs to keep both a
>>> reference list of allocated sva domains and the corresponding PASID.
>>> However, currently, mm struct only has one pasid field for sva usage,
>>> which is used to keep the info of an assigned PASID. That pasid field
>>> cannot provide sufficient info to build up the 1:n mapping between PASID
>>> and sva domains.
>> Is it more appropriate to have the same life cycle for sva domain and mm
>> pasid? I feel that they represent the same thing, that is, the address
>> space shared by mm to a device.
> No! The iommu_domain and the PASID are totally seperate objects with
> their own lifecycles.
> 
> The SVA domain should NEVER be tied to the mm enqcmd PASID.

Okay. Fair enough.

> 
> We might decide to free all the domains and keep the PASID around (can
> we even revoke the enqcmd pasid while the MM is alive?)

We ever did this and was removed to make code simple.

Best regards,
baolu