Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-15968-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates
 216.228.117.160 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=216.228.117.160; helo=mail.nvidia.com; pr=C
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2024 12:18:35 -0800
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
CC: Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@intel.com>, "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@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>, "joao.m.martins@oracle.com"
	<joao.m.martins@oracle.com>, "Zeng, Xin" <xin.zeng@intel.com>, "Zhao, Yan Y"
	<yan.y.zhao@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] iommufd: Add data structure for Intel VT-d
 stage-1 cache invalidation
Message-ID: <ZZXBGw9dJyvb/5r5@Asurada-Nvidia>
References: <BN9PR11MB52766D7F774510E0181CC89B8C93A@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ZXvI2IiXwwuHRE8V@Asurada-Nvidia>
 <7c398efc-8a2f-479d-bcff-ded8cc1ef3d0@intel.com>
 <20240102233849.GK50406@nvidia.com>
 <c59a780d-4030-4815-a34b-fb2e2f902ab3@intel.com>
 <20240103160108.GP50406@nvidia.com>
 <ZZWP7iBqUtbTRb3s@Asurada-Nvidia>
 <20240103165848.GR50406@nvidia.com>
 <ZZWUD+lCw3mRc/15@Asurada-Nvidia>
 <20240103175202.GT50406@nvidia.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240103175202.GT50406@nvidia.com>
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jan 2024 20:18:47.7318
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 7b7a37cf-0c68-447d-36a5-08dc0c993177
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[216.228.117.160];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource:
	MN1PEPF0000F0E2.namprd04.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SA1PR12MB5613

On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 01:52:02PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 09:06:23AM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 12:58:48PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 08:48:46AM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > > > You can pass the ctx to the invalidate op, it is already implied
> > > > > because the passed iommu_domain is linked to a single iommufd ctx.
> > > > 
> > > > The device virtual id lookup API needs something similar, yet it
> > > > likely needs a viommu pointer (or its id) instead? As the table
> > > > is attached to a viommu while an ictx can have multiple viommus,
> > > > right?
> > > 
> > > Yes, when we get to an API for that it will have to be some op
> > > 'invalidate_viommu(..)' and it can get the necessary pointers.
> > 
> > OK! I will try that first.
> > 
> > > The viommu object will have to be some driver object like the
> > > iommu_domain.
> > 
> > I drafted something like this, linking it to struct iommu_device:
> > 
> > +struct iommufd_viommu {
> > +       struct iommufd_object obj;
> > +       struct iommufd_ctx *ictx;
> > +       struct iommu_device *iommu_dev;
> > +       struct iommufd_hwpt_paging *hwpt;
> > +       /* array of struct iommufd_device, indexed by device virtual id */
> > +       struct xarray device_ids;
> > +};
> 
> The driver would have to create it and there would be some driver
> specific enclosing struct to go with it
> 
> Perhaps device_ids goes in the driver specific struct, I don't know.

+struct iommufd_viommu {
+	struct iommufd_object obj;
+	struct iommufd_ctx *ictx;
+	struct iommu_device *iommu_dev;
+	struct iommufd_hwpt_paging *hwpt;	/* maybe unneeded */
+
+	int vmid;
+
+	union iommu_driver_user_data {
+		struct iommu_driver_user_vtd;
+		struct iommu_driver_user_arm_smmuv3;
+		struct iommu_driver_user_amd_viommu;
+	};
+};

Then iommu_ops would need something like:
	iommu_user_alloc/free(struct iommu_device *iommu_dev,
			      union *iommu_driver_user_data, int *vmid);
	iommu_user_set/unset_dev_id(union iommu_driver_user_data,
				    struct device* dev. u32/u64 id);
	iommu_user_invalidate(union iommu_driver_user_data *iommu,
			      struct iommu_user_data_array *array);

Comments and ideas on better naming convention?

> Not sure it should have hwpt at all, probably vmid should come from
> the driver specific struct in some driver specific way

The idea having a hwpt pointer is to share the paging hwpt among
the viommu objects. I don't think it "shouldn't have", yet likely
we can avoid it depending on whether it will have some use or not
in the context.

Nicolin