[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZMsBi24W2+ubtmkh@Asurada-Nvidia>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 18:23:23 -0700
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
CC: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
"baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
"cohuck@...hat.com" <cohuck@...hat.com>,
"eric.auger@...hat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com" <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>,
"chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com" <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>,
"yi.y.sun@...ux.intel.com" <yi.y.sun@...ux.intel.com>,
"peterx@...hat.com" <peterx@...hat.com>,
"jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com"
<shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
"lulu@...hat.com" <lulu@...hat.com>,
"suravee.suthikulpanit@....com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
"iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
"Duan, Zhenzhong" <zhenzhong.duan@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/17] iommufd: Add IOMMU_RESV_IOVA_RANGES
On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 01:09:28AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 2:23 AM
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 02:40:44AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >
> > > > So, I guess we should leave it like this?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes. Along with this discussion (including what you explained for sw_msi)
> > > let's abandon this new cmd and leave it as today.
> >
> > You sure? This makes it basically impossible to write a "correct" vmm
> > that is aware of what the physical memory map must be early on
> >
>
> emmm... I thought it's what you meant by "leave it like this" and the
> fact that existing VMM's memory layout happens to match the reserved
> regions. Nobody complains lacking of such a interface for years then
> we may postpone supporting it until it's really required.
>
> btw even if we add this new cmd now, getting the Qemu support to
> use the aggregated list when creating the guest memory map is not
> a simple task given currently vfio only passively acts on change
> notifications in the guest memory layout. It requires a new mechanism
> to enforce strict order (probe all vfio devices before creating the memory
> layout) and then injects vfio reserved regions into the layout.
>
> Preferably let's not making it a hard dependency for this series.
Should we drop this and its selftest patch from this series?
Thanks
Nic
Powered by blists - more mailing lists