On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:23:31AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 2018年04月12日 01:00, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 09:41:05PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 2018年04月11日 16:38, Tiwei Bie wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 04:01:19PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > On 2018年04月11日 15:20, Tiwei Bie wrote: > > > > > > This patch introduces VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_NEED_ALL_IOTLB > > > > > > feature for vhost-user. By default, vhost-user backend needs > > > > > > to query the IOTLBs from QEMU after meeting unknown IOVAs. > > > > > > With this protocol feature negotiated, QEMU will provide all > > > > > > the IOTLBs to vhost-user backend without waiting for the > > > > > > queries from backend. This is helpful when using a hardware > > > > > > accelerator which is not able to handle unknown IOVAs at the > > > > > > vhost-user backend. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie<tiwei....@intel.com> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > The idea of this patch is to let QEMU push all the IOTLBs > > > > > > to vhost-user backend without waiting for the queries from > > > > > > the backend. Because hardware accelerator at the vhost-user > > > > > > backend may not be able to handle unknown IOVAs. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is just a RFC for now. It seems that, it doesn't work > > > > > > as expected when guest is using kernel driver (To handle > > > > > > this case, it seems that some RAM regions' events also need > > > > > > to be listened). Any comments would be appreciated! Thanks! > > > > > Interesting, a quick question is why this is needed? Can we just use > > > > > exist > > > > > IOTLB update message? > > > > Yeah, we are still using the existing IOTLB update messages > > > > to send the IOTLB messages to backend. The only difference > > > > is that, QEMU won't wait for the queries before sending the > > > > IOTLB update messages. > > > Yes, my question is not very clear. I mean why must need a new feature > > > bit? > > > It looks to me qemu code can work without this. > > > > > > Thanks > > Generally we avoid adding new messages without a protocol feature bit. > > While careful analysis might sometimes prove it's not a strict > > requirement, it's just overall a clean and robust approach. > > > > Right but the looks like the patch does not introduce any new type of > messages. > > Thanks
In this case remote needs to know that it will send these messages. -- MST
