[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1353975701.2179.18.camel@pasglop>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:21:41 +1100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>,
Sethi Varun-B16395 <B16395@...escale.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfio powerpc: enabled and supported on powernv platform
On Mon, 2012-11-26 at 11:04 -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> Ok, I see tces are put on shutdown via tce_iommu_detach_group, so you're
> more concerned about the guest simply mapping over top of it's own
> mappings. Is that common? Is it common enough for every multi-page
> mapping to assume it will happen? I know this is a performance
> sensitive path for you and it seems like a map-only w/ fallback to
> unmap, remap would be better in the general case.
>
> On x86 we do exactly that, but we do the unmap, remap from userspace
> when we get an EBUSY. Thanks,
Right, Linux as guest at least will never map "over" an existing
mapping. It will always unmap first. IE. The only transition we do on
H_PUT_TCE are 0 -> valid and valid -> 0.
So it would be fine to simplify the code and keep the "map over map" as
a slow fallback. I can't tell for other operating systems but we don't
care about those at this point :-)
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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