Message ID | 20230923012511.10379-1-joao.m.martins@oracle.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | IOMMUFD Dirty Tracking | expand |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Joao Martins [mailto:joao.m.martins@oracle.com] > Sent: 23 September 2023 02:25 > To: iommu@lists.linux.dev > Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>; Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>; > Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>; Lu > Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>; Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@intel.com>; Yi Y Sun > <yi.y.sun@intel.com>; Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>; Joerg Roedel > <joro@8bytes.org>; Suravee Suthikulpanit > <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>; Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>; Robin > Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>; Alex Williamson > <alex.williamson@redhat.com>; kvm@vger.kernel.org; Joao Martins > <joao.m.martins@oracle.com> > Subject: [PATCH v3 00/19] IOMMUFD Dirty Tracking > [...] > For ARM-SMMU-v3 I've made adjustments from the RFCv2 but staged this > into a branch[6] with all the changes but didn't include here as I can't > test this besides compilation. Shameer, if you can pick up as chatted > sometime ago it would be great as you have the hardware. Note that > it depends on some patches from Nicolin for hw_info() and > domain_alloc_user() base support coming from his nesting work. Thanks Joao. Sure will do. Shameer
On Sat, Sep 23, 2023 at 02:24:52AM +0100, Joao Martins wrote: > Joao Martins (19): > vfio/iova_bitmap: Export more API symbols > vfio: Move iova_bitmap into iommu core > iommu: Add iommu_domain ops for dirty tracking > iommufd: Add a flag to enforce dirty tracking on attach > iommufd/selftest: Expand mock_domain with dev_flags > iommufd/selftest: Test IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_ENFORCE_DIRTY > iommufd: Dirty tracking data support > iommufd: Add IOMMU_HWPT_SET_DIRTY > iommufd/selftest: Test IOMMU_HWPT_SET_DIRTY > iommufd: Add IOMMU_HWPT_GET_DIRTY_IOVA > iommufd/selftest: Test IOMMU_HWPT_GET_DIRTY_IOVA > iommufd: Add capabilities to IOMMU_GET_HW_INFO > iommufd/selftest: Test out_capabilities in IOMMU_GET_HW_INFO > iommufd: Add a flag to skip clearing of IOPTE dirty > iommufd/selftest: Test IOMMU_GET_DIRTY_IOVA_NO_CLEAR flag > iommu/amd: Add domain_alloc_user based domain allocation > iommu/amd: Access/Dirty bit support in IOPTEs > iommu/amd: Print access/dirty bits if supported > iommu/intel: Access/Dirty bit support for SL domains I read through this and I'm happy with the design - small points aside Suggest to fix those and resend ASAP. Kevin, you should check it too If either AMD or Intel ack the driver part next week I would take it this cycle. Otherwise at -rc1. Also I recommend you push all the selftest to a block of patches at the end of the series so the core code reads as one chunk. It doesn't seem as large that way :) Thanks, Jason
On 13/10/2023 17:29, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Sat, Sep 23, 2023 at 02:24:52AM +0100, Joao Martins wrote: > >> Joao Martins (19): >> vfio/iova_bitmap: Export more API symbols >> vfio: Move iova_bitmap into iommu core >> iommu: Add iommu_domain ops for dirty tracking >> iommufd: Add a flag to enforce dirty tracking on attach >> iommufd/selftest: Expand mock_domain with dev_flags >> iommufd/selftest: Test IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_ENFORCE_DIRTY >> iommufd: Dirty tracking data support >> iommufd: Add IOMMU_HWPT_SET_DIRTY >> iommufd/selftest: Test IOMMU_HWPT_SET_DIRTY >> iommufd: Add IOMMU_HWPT_GET_DIRTY_IOVA >> iommufd/selftest: Test IOMMU_HWPT_GET_DIRTY_IOVA >> iommufd: Add capabilities to IOMMU_GET_HW_INFO >> iommufd/selftest: Test out_capabilities in IOMMU_GET_HW_INFO >> iommufd: Add a flag to skip clearing of IOPTE dirty >> iommufd/selftest: Test IOMMU_GET_DIRTY_IOVA_NO_CLEAR flag >> iommu/amd: Add domain_alloc_user based domain allocation >> iommu/amd: Access/Dirty bit support in IOPTEs >> iommu/amd: Print access/dirty bits if supported >> iommu/intel: Access/Dirty bit support for SL domains > > I read through this and I'm happy with the design - small points aside > Great! > Suggest to fix those and resend ASAP. > > Kevin, you should check it too > > If either AMD or Intel ack the driver part next week I would take it > this cycle. Otherwise at -rc1. > FWIW, I feel more confident on the AMD parts as they have been exercised on real hardware. Suravee, Vasant, if you could take a look at the AMD driver patches -- you looked at a past revision (RFCv1) and provided comments but while I took the comments I didn't get Suravee's ACK as things were in flux on the UAPI side. But it looks that v4 won't change much of the drivers > Also I recommend you push all the selftest to a block of patches at > the end of the series so the core code reads as one chunk. It doesn't > seem as large that way :) > Ah OK, interesting -- good to know, I can move to the end. I thought the desired way (for reviewing purpose) was to put test right after, such that the reviewer has it fresh while looking at the test code
On 2023/10/14 2:11, Joao Martins wrote: >> If either AMD or Intel ack the driver part next week I would take it >> this cycle. Otherwise at -rc1. >> > FWIW, I feel more confident on the AMD parts as they have been exercised on real > hardware. > > Suravee, Vasant, if you could take a look at the AMD driver patches -- you > looked at a past revision (RFCv1) and provided comments but while I took the > comments I didn't get Suravee's ACK as things were in flux on the UAPI side. But > it looks that v4 won't change much of the drivers > I will also take a look at the Intel driver part. Best regards, baolu