[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AAF8966.3040602@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:32:38 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
CC: Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>,
"Ira W. Snyder" <iws@...o.caltech.edu>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, linux-mm@...ck.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hpa@...or.com,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, s.hetze@...ux-ag.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 3/3] vhost_net: a kernel-level virtio server
On 09/14/2009 07:47 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 12:08:55PM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>
>> For Ira's example, the addresses would represent a physical address on
>> the PCI boards, and would follow any kind of relevant rules for
>> converting a "GPA" to a host accessible address (even if indirectly, via
>> a dma controller).
>>
> I don't think limiting addresses to PCI physical addresses will work
> well. From what I rememeber, Ira's x86 can not initiate burst
> transactions on PCI, and it's the ppc that initiates all DMA.
>
vhost-net would run on the PPC then.
>>> But we can't let the guest specify physical addresses.
>>>
>> Agreed. Neither your proposal nor mine operate this way afaict.
>>
> But this seems to be what Ira needs.
>
In Ira's scenario, the "guest" (x86 host) specifies x86 physical
addresses, and the ppc dmas to them. It's the virtio model without any
change. A normal guest also specifis physical addresses.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists