On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 04:26:59PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:48:37PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 04:48:49PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 07:49:10PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 06:25:53PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote: > > > > > This is v5 of vt-d vfio enablement series. > > > > > > > > > > Most of the changes in v5 is not functionally, but related to > > > > > comments, error_report()s, debugging, squashing patches, etc. (which > > > > > are confirmed changes in v4), besides a tiny tweak when unmapping a > > > > > whole address space (please see below changelog). There are still > > > > > discussions in v4 thread, we can just continue there (or here), and > > > > > from this version I'll remove RFC tag. > > > > > > > > > > I didn't rebase to master since current master failed to build on my > > > > > laptop (with a "vl.c/hax..." error), however this series should be > > > > > okay to be applied cleanly upon it. > > > > > > > > Sorry I forgot to append the todo list (please help adding in in case > > > > I missed anything): > > > > > > > > - don't need to notify IOTLB (psi/gsi/global) invalidations to devices > > > > that with ATS enabled > > > > - investigate when guest map page while mask contains existing mapped > > > > pages (e.g. map 12k-16k first, then map 0-12k) > > > > - coalesce unmap during page walk (currently, we send it once per > > > > page) > > > > - when do PSI for unmap, whether we can send one notify directly > > > > instead of walking over the page table? > > > > > > > > Above does not contain those that are still during discussion. And, > > > > some of the entries still need tests to further prove it's > > > > feasibility. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > -- peterx > > > > > > While valid I don't think above need to block merging. > > > > Sorry for the delay of this series. > > > > Looks like we still need to wait until we got explicit acks for vfio > > patch 2-3 from Alex/Paolo/David since that'll be required by the > > following series. (I'll address all Jason's new comments as well in > > next post) > > > > Do you like to merge the iommu cleanups first? Or you can also wait > > for above to be confirmed, and I'll repost for a final version then > > (if we don't have further comments). > > > > Thanks, > > > > -- peterx > > I can do that. If you want me to, pls post just the patches > that are ready separately.
Thanks for the offer! Since I see that currently the only uncertainty of this series would be the impact that patch 3 might bring to Power, I'll prefer we wait for several more days until David's back (I suppose it's next Monday or so), to see whether I can send a complete final version. Thanks, -- peterx
