[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC v8 3/5] memory: Add IOMMU_DEVIOTLB_UNMAP IOMMUTLBNotificationTy
From: |
Eugenio Perez Martin |
Subject: |
Re: [RFC v8 3/5] memory: Add IOMMU_DEVIOTLB_UNMAP IOMMUTLBNotificationType |
Date: |
Thu, 3 Sep 2020 12:13:53 +0200 |
Hi Eric,
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 12:32 PM Auger Eric <eric.auger@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Eugenio,
>
> On 9/1/20 4:26 PM, Eugenio Pérez wrote:
> > Adapt intel and vhost to use this new notification type
> I think you should explain in the commit message what is the benefice to
> introduce this new event type.
Will do, thanks!
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > hw/i386/intel_iommu.c | 2 +-
> > hw/virtio/vhost.c | 2 +-
> > include/exec/memory.h | 2 ++
> > 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
> > index 0c4aef5cb5..cdddb089e7 100644
> > --- a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
> > +++ b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
> > @@ -2468,7 +2468,7 @@ static bool
> > vtd_process_device_iotlb_desc(IntelIOMMUState *s,
> > sz = VTD_PAGE_SIZE;
> > }
> >
> > - event.type = IOMMU_NOTIFIER_UNMAP;
> > + event.type = IOMMU_NOTIFIER_DEVIOTLB;
> If this is used only for device IOTLB cache invalidation, shouldn't this
> be named IOMMU_NOTIFIER_DEVIOTLB_UNMAP to be consistent with the rest?
> > event.entry.target_as = &vtd_dev_as->as;
> > event.entry.addr_mask = sz - 1;
> > event.entry.iova = addr;
> > diff --git a/hw/virtio/vhost.c b/hw/virtio/vhost.c
> > index 1a1384e7a6..6ca168b47e 100644
> > --- a/hw/virtio/vhost.c
> > +++ b/hw/virtio/vhost.c
> > @@ -729,7 +729,7 @@ static void vhost_iommu_region_add(MemoryListener
> > *listener,
> > iommu_idx = memory_region_iommu_attrs_to_index(iommu_mr,
> > MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED);
> > iommu_notifier_init(&iommu->n, vhost_iommu_unmap_notify,
> > - IOMMU_NOTIFIER_UNMAP,
> > + IOMMU_NOTIFIER_DEVIOTLB,
> > section->offset_within_region,
> > int128_get64(end),
> > iommu_idx);
> > diff --git a/include/exec/memory.h b/include/exec/memory.h
> > index 8a56707169..215e23973d 100644
> > --- a/include/exec/memory.h
> > +++ b/include/exec/memory.h
> > @@ -87,6 +87,8 @@ typedef enum {
> > IOMMU_NOTIFIER_UNMAP = 0x1,
> > /* Notify entry changes (newly created entries) */
> > IOMMU_NOTIFIER_MAP = 0x2,
> > + /* Notify changes on device IOTLB entries */
> > + IOMMU_NOTIFIER_DEVIOTLB = 0x04,
> > } IOMMUNotifierFlag;
> >
> > #define IOMMU_NOTIFIER_ALL (IOMMU_NOTIFIER_MAP | IOMMU_NOTIFIER_UNMAP)
> shouldn't we rename this one??
> >
>
Agree, but I'm not sure about the right name. IOMMU_NOTIFIER_ALL_ROOT?
IOMMU_NOTIFIER_ALL_REGULAR?
Thanks!
> Thanks
>
> Eric
>
- Re: [RFC v8 2/5] memory: Add IOMMUTLBEvent, (continued)
[RFC v8 3/5] memory: Add IOMMU_DEVIOTLB_UNMAP IOMMUTLBNotificationType, Eugenio Pérez, 2020/09/01
[RFC v8 5/5] memory: Skip bad range assertion if notifier is DEVIOTLB type, Eugenio Pérez, 2020/09/01
Re: [RFC v8 0/5] memory: Delete assertion in memory_region_unregister_iommu_notifier, Peter Xu, 2020/09/01