Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:8 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:8;
Date:   Tue, 5 Dec 2023 15:37:13 +0100
From:   Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@kernel.org>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, ankita@nvidia.com,
        Shameerali Kolothum Thodi 
        <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>, oliver.upton@linux.dev,
        suzuki.poulose@arm.com, yuzenghui@huawei.com, will@kernel.org,
        ardb@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, gshan@redhat.com,
        aniketa@nvidia.com, cjia@nvidia.com, kwankhede@nvidia.com,
        targupta@nvidia.com, vsethi@nvidia.com, acurrid@nvidia.com,
        apopple@nvidia.com, jhubbard@nvidia.com, danw@nvidia.com,
        mochs@nvidia.com, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] KVM: arm64: allow the VM to select DEVICE_* and
 NORMAL_NC for IO memory
Message-ID: <ZW81mT4WqKqtLnid@lpieralisi>
References: <20231205033015.10044-1-ankita@nvidia.com>
 <86fs0hatt3.wl-maz@kernel.org>
 <ZW8MP2tDt4_9ROBz@arm.com>
 <20231205130517.GD2692119@nvidia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231205130517.GD2692119@nvidia.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 09:05:17AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 11:40:47AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > - Will had unanswered questions in another part of the thread:
> > > 
> > >   https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231013092954.GB13524@willie-the-truck/
> > > 
> > >   Can someone please help concluding it?
> > 
> > Is this about reclaiming the device? I think we concluded that we can't
> > generalise this beyond PCIe, though not sure there was any formal
> > statement to that thread. The other point Will had was around stating
> > in the commit message why we only relax this to Normal NC. I haven't
> > checked the commit message yet, it needs careful reading ;).
> 
> Not quite, we said reclaiming is VFIO's problem and if VFIO can't
> reliably reclaim a device it shouldn't create it in the first place.

I think that as far as device reclaiming was concerned the question
posed was related to memory attributes of transactions for guest
mappings and the related grouping/ordering with device reset MMIO
transactions - it was not (or wasn't only) about error containment.

Thanks,
Lorenzo