[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200711122237.29369.amit.shah@qumranet.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:37:29 +0530
From: Amit Shah <amit.shah@...ranet.com>
To: "Joerg Roedel" <joerg.roedel@....com>
Cc: kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 1/8] KVM: PVDMA Host: Handle reqeusts for guest DMA mappings
On Monday 12 November 2007 21:25:22 Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 04:21:02PM +0200, Amit Shah wrote:
> > @@ -1649,6 +1913,15 @@ int kvm_emulate_hypercall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > }
> >
> > switch (nr) {
> > + case KVM_PV_DMA_MAP:
> > + ret = pv_map_hypercall(vcpu, a0, a1);
> > + break;
> > + case KVM_PV_DMA_UNMAP:
> > + ret = pv_unmap_hypercall(vcpu, a0);
> > + break;
> > + case KVM_PV_PCI_DEVICE:
> > + ret = pv_mapped_pci_device_hypercall(vcpu, a0);
> > + break;
> > default:
> > ret = -KVM_ENOSYS;
> > break;
>
> How does synchronization work with that design? I don't see a hypercall
> to synchronize de DMA buffers. It will only work if GART is used as the
> dma_ops backend on the host side and not with SWIOTLB. But GART can be
> configured away. Or do I miss something?
A per-VM lock is needed while mapping or unmapping. It's one of the TODOs.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists