Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-204906-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
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: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 11:44:58 -0700
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
CC: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>, "will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
	"robin.murphy@arm.com" <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	"suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>,
	"joro@8bytes.org" <joro@8bytes.org>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "iommu@lists.linux.dev"
	<iommu@lists.linux.dev>, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org"
	<linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>, "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
	"eric.auger@redhat.com" <eric.auger@redhat.com>, "vasant.hegde@amd.com"
	<vasant.hegde@amd.com>, "jon.grimm@amd.com" <jon.grimm@amd.com>,
	"santosh.shukla@amd.com" <santosh.shukla@amd.com>, "Dhaval.Giani@amd.com"
	<Dhaval.Giani@amd.com>, "shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com"
	<shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFCv1 08/14] iommufd: Add IOMMU_VIOMMU_SET_DEV_ID ioctl
Message-ID: <ZmIDqgfINXfB0i3L@Asurada-Nvidia>
References: <20240524131912.GT20229@nvidia.com>
 <BN9PR11MB5276BBD592021507C3A0EBB38CF02@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ZlY886FT3HHLC8Cf@nvidia.com>
 <BN9PR11MB52762EA9B444DA71F551C3868CF22@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ZlafEktUu5znDsNt@Asurada-Nvidia>
 <BN9PR11MB5276AC43120376A2502D3D148CF32@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ZlfPPwsnY6P4SoGF@Asurada-Nvidia>
 <ZluWXYQjroz0fqqn@nvidia.com>
 <Zl03rsgZl/msa3I+@nvidia.com>
 <20240606182423.GF19897@nvidia.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240606182423.GF19897@nvidia.com>
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jun 2024 18:45:16.4810
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: e74cda1a-7fb5-4d54-9c51-08dc8658cee1
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:
	CY4PEPF0000E9D4.namprd03.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN7PR12MB6716

On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 03:24:23PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 02, 2024 at 08:25:34PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> 
> > > I understand the appeal of doing this has been to minimize qemu
> > > changes in its ACPI parts if we tackle that instead maybe we should
> > > just not implement viommu to multiple piommu. It is somewhat
> > > complicated.
> > 
> > Would you please clarify that suggestion "not implement viommu
> > to multiple piommu"?
> > 
> > For regular nesting (SMMU), we are still doing one vSMMU in the
> > VMM, though VCMDQ case would be an exception....
> 
> This is what I mean, always do multiple vSMMU if there are multiple
> physical pSMMUs. Don't replicate any virtual commands across pSMMUs.

Thanks for clarifying. That also means you'd prefer putting the
command dispatcher in VMM, which is what we have at this moment.

Nicolin