[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240522122237.1b4bf782.alex.williamson@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 12:22:37 -0600
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>, "Vetter, Daniel"
<daniel.vetter@...el.com>, "Zhao, Yan Y" <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>, "pbonzini@...hat.com"
<pbonzini@...hat.com>, "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>, "peterz@...radead.org"
<peterz@...radead.org>, "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>, "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>, "baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com"
<baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] vfio/type1: Flush CPU caches on DMA pages in
non-coherent domains
On Wed, 22 May 2024 13:52:21 -0300
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 08:43:18AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
>
> > But I think this also means that regardless of virtualizing
> > PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_NOSNOOP_EN, there will be momentary gaps around device
> > resets where a device could legitimately perform no-snoop
> > transactions.
>
> Isn't memory enable turned off after FLR? If not do we have to make it
> off before doing FLR?
>
> I'm not sure how a no-snoop could leak out around FLR?
Good point, modulo s/memory/bus master/. Yes, we'd likely need to make
sure we enter pci_reset_function() with BM disabled so that we don't
have an ordering issue between restoring the PCIe capability and the
command register. Likewise no-snoop handling would need to avoid gaps
around backdoor resets like we try to do when we're masking INTx
support on the device (vfio_bar_restore). Thanks,
Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists