[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210423161114-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 16:14:32 -0400
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xieyongji@...edance.com,
stefanha@...hat.com, file@...t.tu-berlin.de, ashish.kalra@....com,
martin.radev@...ec.fraunhofer.de, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] Untrusted device support for virtio
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 04:19:16PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>
> 在 2021/4/22 下午2:31, Christoph Hellwig 写道:
> > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 11:21:10AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > The behaivor for non DMA API is kept for minimizing the performance
> > > impact.
> > NAK. Everyone should be using the DMA API in a modern world. So
> > treating the DMA API path worse than the broken legacy path does not
> > make any sense whatsoever.
>
>
> I think the goal is not treat DMA API path worse than legacy. The issue is
> that the management layer should guarantee that ACCESS_PLATFORM is set so
> DMA API is guaranteed to be used by the driver. So I'm not sure how much
> value we can gain from trying to 'fix' the legacy path. But I can change the
> behavior of legacy path to match DMA API path.
>
> Thanks
I think before we maintain different paths with/without ACCESS_PLATFORM
it's worth checking whether it's even a net gain. Avoiding sharing
by storing data in private memory can actually turn out to be
a net gain even without DMA API.
It is worth checking what is the performance effect of this patch.
--
MST
Powered by blists - more mailing lists