[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <682d520e-00e3-cdaa-d51e-23524ae48854@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 18:12:38 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V3 0/5] Hi:
On 2019/1/7 下午10:47, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 02:58:08PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 2019/1/5 上午5:41, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 08:46:51PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> This series tries to access virtqueue metadata through kernel virtual
>>>> address instead of copy_user() friends since they had too much
>>>> overheads like checks, spec barriers or even hardware feature
>>>> toggling.
>>> I think it's a reasonable approach.
>>> However I need to look at whether and which mmu notifiers are invoked before
>>> writeback. Do you know?
>>
>> I don't know but just looking at the MMU notifier ops definition, there's no
>> such callback if my understanding is correct.
>>
>> Thanks
> In that case how are you making sure used ring updates are written back?
> If they aren't guest will crash ...
I think this is the writeback issue you mentioned early. I don't do a
followup on the pointer but it looks to me some work is ongoing to fix
the issue.
I can investigate it more, but it's not something new, consider the case
of VFIO.
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists