[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180613161806-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:49:39 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>, robh@...nel.org, aik@...abs.ru,
jasowang@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, joe@...ches.com,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net,
david@...son.dropbear.id.au, cohuck@...hat.com, pawel.moll@....com,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
"Rustad, Mark D" <mark.d.rustad@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC V2] virtio: Add platform specific DMA API translation for
virito devices
On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 11:36:55PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > This seems to be what was being asked for in this thread,
> > with comments claiming IOMMU flag adds too much overhead.
>
> Right now it means implementing a virtual iommu, which I agree is
> way too much overhead.
Well not really. The flag in question will have a desired effect without
a virtual iommu.
> > SEV guys report that they just set the iommu flag and then it all works.
> > I guess if there's translation we can think of this as a kind of iommu.
> > Maybe we should rename PLATFORM_IOMMU to PLARTFORM_TRANSLATION?
>
> VIRTIO_F_BEHAVES_LIKE_A_REAL_PCI_DEVICE_DONT_TRY_TO_OUTSMART_ME
>
> as said it's not just translations, it is cache coherence as well.
Well it's only for DMA. So maybe PLATFORM_DMA.
I suspect people will then come and complain that they
do *not* want cache coherence tricks because virtio is
running on a CPU, but we'll see.
> > And apparently some people complain that just setting that flag makes
> > qemu check translation on each access with an unacceptable performance
> > overhead. Forcing same behaviour for everyone on general principles
> > even without the flag is unlikely to make them happy.
>
> That sounds like a qemu implementation bug. If qemu knowns that
> guest physiscall == guest dma space there is no need to check.
Possibly. Or it's possible it's all just theoretical, no one
posted any numbers.
--
MST
Powered by blists - more mailing lists