Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:1;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates
 216.228.117.161 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=216.228.117.161; helo=mail.nvidia.com; pr=C
Date:   Fri, 20 Oct 2023 11:59:13 -0700
From:   Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
CC:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
        "joro@8bytes.org" <joro@8bytes.org>,
        "alex.williamson@redhat.com" <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
        "robin.murphy@arm.com" <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        "baolu.lu@linux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
        "cohuck@redhat.com" <cohuck@redhat.com>,
        "eric.auger@redhat.com" <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "mjrosato@linux.ibm.com" <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>,
        "chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com" <chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>,
        "yi.y.sun@linux.intel.com" <yi.y.sun@linux.intel.com>,
        "peterx@redhat.com" <peterx@redhat.com>,
        "jasowang@redhat.com" <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        "shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com" 
        <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>,
        "lulu@redhat.com" <lulu@redhat.com>,
        "suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>,
        "iommu@lists.linux.dev" <iommu@lists.linux.dev>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Duan, Zhenzhong" <zhenzhong.duan@intel.com>,
        "Martins, Joao" <joao.m.martins@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 08/17] iommufd: Always setup MSI and anforce cc on
 kernel-managed domains
Message-ID: <ZTLOAQK/KcjAJb3y@Asurada-Nvidia>
References: <BN9PR11MB52763227866603ED7795AA068CD7A@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <20231016115736.GP3952@nvidia.com>
 <BN9PR11MB5276FDC375685CE04A7AD93B8CD6A@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <20231017155301.GH3952@nvidia.com>
 <ZS7nb+mKanGFXhZY@Asurada-Nvidia>
 <20231018165113.GB3952@nvidia.com>
 <BN9PR11MB5276B9994AD06E91E07B7EF08CD4A@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <20231019235350.GY3952@nvidia.com>
 <BN9PR11MB5276A64DA68586AEFB6561148CDBA@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <20231020135501.GG3952@nvidia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20231020135501.GG3952@nvidia.com>
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Oct 2023 18:59:26.9088
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 3e9220de-c3c0-46dc-c9d3-08dbd19eaed4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[216.228.117.161];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: MN1PEPF0000F0E0.namprd04.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CH0PR12MB5075
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on morse.vger.email
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.4 (morse.vger.email [0.0.0.0]); Fri, 20 Oct 2023 11:59:57 -0700 (PDT)

On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 10:55:01AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 02:43:58AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> 
> > What we want to prevent is attaching a non-CC device to a CC domain
> > or upgrade a non-CC domain to CC since in both case the non-CC
> > device will be broken due to incompatible page table format.
> 
> [..]
> 
> > Who cares about such consistency? sure the result is different due to order:
> > 
> > 1) creating hwpt for dev1 (non-CC) then later attaching hwpt to
> >     dev2 (CC) will succeed;
> > 
> > 2) creating hwpt for dev2 (CC) then later attaching hwpt to
> >     dev1 (non-CC) will fail then the user should create a new hwpt
> >     for dev1;
> 
> AH... So really what the Intel driver wants is not upgrade to CC but
> *downgrade* from CC.
> 
> non-CC is the type that is universally applicable, so if we come
> across a non-CC capable device the proper/optimal thing is to degrade
> the HWPT and re-use it, not allocate a new HWPT.
> 
> So the whole thing is upside down.
> 
> As changing the IOPTEs in flight seems hard, and I don't want to see
> the Intel driver get slowed down to accomodate this, I think you are
> right to say this should be a creation time property only.
> 
> I still think userspace should be able to select it so it can minimize
> the number of HWPTs required.
> 
> > But the user shouldn't assume such explicit consistency since it's not
> > defined in our uAPI. All we defined is that the attaching may
> > fail due to incompatibility for whatever reason then the user can
> > always try creating a new hwpt for the to-be-attached device. From
> > this regard I don't see providing consistency of result is
> > necessary. ????
> 
> Anyhow, OK, lets add a comment summarizing your points and remove the
> cc upgrade at attach time (sorry Nicolin/Yi!)

Ack. I will send a small removal series. I assume it should CC
stable tree also? And where should we add this comment? Kdoc of
the alloc uAPI?

Thanks!
Nicolin

> It is easy to add a HWPT flag for this later if someone wants to
> optimize it.
> 
> Jason