Messages in this thread | | | From | "Tian, Kevin" <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH 0/7] iommu cleanup and refactoring | Date | Tue, 25 Jan 2022 01:11:55 +0000 |
| |
> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> > Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 1:44 AM > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 09:46:26AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > From: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> > > > Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 3:11 PM > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > The guest pasid and aux-domain related code are dead code in current > > > iommu subtree. As we have reached a consensus that all these features > > > should be based on the new iommufd framework (which is under active > > > development), the first part of this series removes and cleanups all > > > the dead code. > > > > > > The second part of this series refactors the iommu_domain by moving all > > > domain-specific ops from iommu_ops to a new domain_ops. This makes > an > > > iommu_domain self-contained and represent the abstraction of an I/O > > > translation table in the IOMMU subsystem. With different type of > > > iommu_domain providing different set of ops, it's easier to support more > > > types of I/O translation tables. > > > > You may want to give more background on this end goal. In general there > > are four IOPT types in iommufd discussions: > > > > 1) The one currently tracked by iommu_domain, with a map/unmap > semantics > > 2) The one managed by mm and shared to iommu via sva_bind/unbind ops > > 3) The one managed by userspace and bound to iommu via iommufd > (require nesting) > > 4) The one managed by KVM (e.g. EPT) and shared to iommu via a TBD > interface > > Yes, at least from an iommufd perspective I'd like to see one struct > for all of these types, mainly so we can have a uniform alloc, attach > and detatch flow for all io page table types. > > If we want to use the iommu_domain, or make iommu_domain a sub-class > of a new struct, can be determined as we go along. > > Regardless, I think this cleanup stands on its own. Moving the ops and > purging the dead code is clearly the right thing to do. >
Indeed!
| |