lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Aug]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 08/12] iommu: Prepare for separating SVA and IOPF
From
On 2023/8/11 0:47, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 02:35:40AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>> From: Baolu Lu<baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 6:41 PM
>>>
>>> On 2023/8/9 8:02, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>>>> From: Jason Gunthorpe<jgg@ziepe.ca>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 2:43 AM
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 08:16:47AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there plan to introduce further error in the future? otherwise this
>>> should
>>>>>> be void.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> btw the work queue is only for sva. If there is no other caller this can be
>>>>>> just kept in iommu-sva.c. No need to create a helper.
>>>>> I think more than just SVA will need a work queue context to process
>>>>> their faults.
>>>>>
>>>> then this series needs more work. Currently the abstraction doesn't
>>>> include workqueue in the common fault reporting layer.
>>> Do you mind elaborate a bit here? workqueue is a basic infrastructure in
>>> the fault handling framework, but it lets the consumers choose to use
>>> it, or not to.
>>>
>> My understanding of Jason's comment was to make the workqueue the
>> default path instead of being opted by the consumer.. that is my 1st
>> impression but might be wrong...
> Yeah, that is one path. Do we have anyone that uses this that doesn't
> want the WQ? (actually who even uses this besides SVA?)

I am still confused. When we forward iopf's to user space through the
iommufd, we don't need to schedule a WQ, right? Or I misunderstood here?

Best regards,
baolu

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-08-11 03:54    [W:0.101 / U:1.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site