On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 06:37:23AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > From: Peter Xu [mailto:pet...@redhat.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:46 AM > > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 11:09:39AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 2017年01月24日 12:52, Peter Xu wrote: > > > >On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 06:36:17PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > >> > > > >>On 2017年01月20日 21:08, Peter Xu wrote: > > > >>>Before this one we only invalidate context cache when we receive > > > >>>context > > > >>>entry invalidations. However it's possible that the invalidation also > > > >>>contains a domain switch (only if cache-mode is enabled for vIOMMU). In > > > >>>that case we need to notify all the registered components about the new > > > >>>mapping. > > > >>> > > > >>>Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> > > > >>>--- > > > >>> hw/i386/intel_iommu.c | 10 ++++++++++ > > > >>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > > >>> > > > >>>diff --git a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c > > > >>>index f9c5142..4b08b4d 100644 > > > >>>--- a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c > > > >>>+++ b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c > > > >>>@@ -1146,6 +1146,16 @@ static void > > vtd_context_device_invalidate(IntelIOMMUState *s, > > > >>> trace_vtd_inv_desc_cc_device(bus_n, > > > >>> VTD_PCI_SLOT(devfn_it), > > > >>> VTD_PCI_FUNC(devfn_it)); > > > >>> vtd_as->context_cache_entry.context_cache_gen = 0; > > > >>>+ /* > > > >>>+ * So a device is moving out of (or moving into) a > > > >>>+ * domain, a replay() suites here to notify all the > > > >>>+ * IOMMU_NOTIFIER_MAP registers about this change. > > > >>>+ * This won't bring bad even if we have no such > > > >>>+ * notifier registered - the IOMMU notification > > > >>>+ * framework will skip MAP notifications if that > > > >>>+ * happened. > > > >>>+ */ > > > >>>+ memory_region_iommu_replay_all(&vtd_as->iommu); > > > >>DSI and GLOBAL questions come back again or no need to care about them > > > >>:) ? > > > >DSI/GLOBAL hanldings are in patch 20 (though it'll be squashed into 18 > > > >in my next post). Is that what you mean above? > > > > > > Seems not, I mean DSI/GLOBAL for context cache invalidation instead of > > > IOTLB > > > :) > > > > Yes, I should possibly do the same thing for context cache global > > invalidations. IIUC context global invalidation should be a superset > > of iotlb invalidation, so maybe I'll add one more patch to call iotlb > > invalidation in context invalidation as well. Kevin/others, please > > correct me if I misunderstood the spec. Thanks, > > > > context invalidation is not superset of iotlb invalidation. The spec just > requires software to always follow a context-cache invalidation with > a PASID-cache invalidation, followed by an IOTLB invalidation.
Thanks for pointing out. If so, looks like current version suffice for this, right? (so no further change needed for this one) -- peterx
