lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v2 00/10] vfio/mdev: IOMMU aware mediated device
From
Date
>> This example only needs to modify first-level translation, and works
>> with SMMUv3. The kernel here could be the host, in which case
>> second-level translation is disabled in the SMMU, or it could be the
>> guest, in which case second-level mappings are created by QEMU and
>> first-level translation is managed by assigning PASID tables to the guest.
>
> the former yes applies to aux domain concept. The latter doesn't -
> you have only one second-level per device. whole PASID table managed
> by guest means you assign the whole device to guest, which is not the
> concept of aux domain here.

Right, in the latter case, the host uses a "normal" domain to assign the
whole PCI function to the guest. But the guest can still use auxiliary
domains like in my example, to sub-assign the PCI function to different
guest userspace applications.

>> So (2) would use iommu_sva_bind_device(), but (1) needs something else.
>> Aren't auxiliary domains suitable for (1)? Why limit auxiliary domain to
>> second-level or nested translation? It seems silly to use a different
>> API for first-level, since the flow in userspace and VFIO is the same as
>> your second-level case as far as MAP_DMA ioctl goes. The difference is
>> that in your case the auxiliary domain supports an additional operation
>> which binds first-level page tables. An auxiliary domain that only
>> supports first-level wouldn't support this operation, but it can still
>> implement iommu_map/unmap/etc.
>
> Thanks for correcting me on this. You are right that aux domain shouldn't
> impose such limitation on 2nd or nested only. We define aux domain
> as a normal domain (aux takes effect only when attaching to a device),
> thus it should support all capabilities possible on a normal domain.
>
> btw I'm not sure whether you look at my comment to patch 8/10. I
> explained the rationale why aux domain doesn't interfere with existing
> default domain usage, and in a quick thinking above example might
> not make difference. but need your confirm here. :-)

Yes sorry, I didn't have time to answer, will do it now

Thanks,
Jean

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-14 16:42    [W:0.165 / U:1.292 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site