Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 01/14] iommu: introduce the concept of BFN...

["Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, September 3, 2018 7:47 PM
> 
> >>> On 03.09.18 at 10:23, <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: 30 August 2018 17:00
> >>
> >> >>> On 23.08.18 at 11:46, <paul.durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > --- a/xen/include/xen/mm.h
> >> > +++ b/xen/include/xen/mm.h
> >> > @@ -26,6 +26,11 @@
> >> >   *   A linear idea of a guest physical address space. For an auto-
> translated
> >> >   *   guest, pfn == gfn while for a non-translated guest, pfn != gfn.
> >> >   *
> >> > + * bfn: Bus Frame Number (definitions in include/xen/iommu.h)
> >> > + *   The linear frame numbers of IOMMU address space. All initiators
> for
> >> (i.e.
> >> > + *   all devices assigned to) a guest share a single IOMMU address
> space
> >> and,
> >> > + *   by default, Xen will ensure bfn == pfn.
> >>
> >> The code changes are purely mechanical and hence fine, but I have
> >> to admit I continue to struggle with the "bus" part in the name here:
> >> I don't think it is any less ambiguous than GFN, because which bus
> >> are you thinking about here? The (virtual) one as seen by the guest,
> >> aiui. The physical (host) one would be at least as natural to be
> >> indexed by such typed/named variables. I'd somehow like it to be
> >> made explicit in the name whose view these represent. GBFN?
> >> VBFN?
> >
> > Well, it always refers to whatever physical bus is on the other side of the
> > IOMMU from the core so it's the view of whatever peripheral devices are
> > located on that bus. As Kevin said each device can have its own address
> space
> > and the fact we always use a global per-VM space is an implementation
> detail
> > so DFN for 'device frame number' or IOFN (since IOVA is reasonably
> widely
> > used term) might be more future-proof?
> 
> I don't think any name alone would make things future-proof. Considering
> the per-device address space case, a frame number would always need
> to come in a tuple paired with a device identifier. Nevertheless I think
> either of the names you suggest would be a slight improvement, perhaps
> DFN even more than IOFN, as that includes whose view this is. But I'd
> certainly appreciate opinions of others, so you don't again end up doing
> something that I've asked for,just to subsequently undo it again.
> 

bus address is commonly used along with physical/virtual address, to
represent different views between devices and CPU. From that angle
I think BFN is a clear term in this context. btw it is not necessary to
differentiate GBFN and MBFN since there is only one BFN view per 
device.

DFN (device frame number) makes me think about something on the
device. What does a device address mean? Even DMA frame number
(thus DMA address) sounds clearer with same DFN notation.

IOFN/IOVA is less preferred to me, as in most cases it refers to virtual
addresses explicitly managed by device driver to be used in I/O requests.
it is not fit for the case where iofn=pfn.

so I prefer to staying with BFN. :-)

Thanks
Kevin


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel