qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v6 1/3] IOMMU: add option to enable VTD_CAP_CM t


From: Michael S. Tsirkin
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v6 1/3] IOMMU: add option to enable VTD_CAP_CM to vIOMMU capility exposoed to guest
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:35:44 +0200

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 12:15:48PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2016年11月11日 11:39, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 10:32:42AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 2016年11月10日 06:00, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 03:28:02PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On 2016年11月08日 19:04, Aviv B.D wrote:
> > > > > > > > From: "Aviv Ben-David"<address@hidden>
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > This capability asks the guest to invalidate cache before each 
> > > > > > > > map operation.
> > > > > > > > We can use this invalidation to trap map operations in the 
> > > > > > > > hypervisor.
> > > > > > Hi:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Like I've asked twice in the past, I want to know why don't you 
> > > > > > cache
> > > > > > translation faults as what spec required (especially this is a 
> > > > > > guest visible
> > > > > > behavior)?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Btw, please cc me on posting future versions.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > Caching isn't guest visible.
> > > Seems not, if one fault mapping were cached by IOTLB. Guest can notice 
> > > this
> > > behavior.
> > Sorry, I don't get what you are saying.
> > 
> > > > Spec just says you*can*  cache,
> > > > not that you must.
> > > > 
> > > Yes, but what did in this patch is "don't". What I suggest is just a 
> > > "can",
> > > since anyway the IOTLB entries were limited and could be replaced by 
> > > other.
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > Have trouble understanding this. Can you given an example of
> > a guest visible difference?
> 
> I guess this may do the detection:
> 
> 1) map iova A to be non-present.
> 2) invalidate iova A
> 3) map iova A to addr B
> 4) access iova A
> 
> A correct implemented CM may meet fault in step 4, but with this patch, we
> never.

I think that IOTLB is free to invalidate entries at any point,
so the fault is not guaranteed on bare metal.

-- 
MST



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]