Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 11 Aug 2023 09:53:41 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 08/12] iommu: Prepare for separating SVA and IOPF | From | Baolu Lu <> |
| |
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
| |