On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 1:06 PM Auger Eric <eric.au...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Eugenio,
> On 9/3/20 12:13 PM, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 12:32 PM Auger Eric <eric.au...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Eugenio,
> >>
> >> On 9/1/20 4:26 PM, Eugenio Pérez wrote:
> >>> Adapt intel and vhost to use this new notification type
> >> I think you should explain in the commit message what is the benefice to
> >> introduce this new event type.
> >
> > Will do, thanks!
> >
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Eugenio Pérez <epere...@redhat.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> hw/i386/intel_iommu.c | 2 +-
> >>> hw/virtio/vhost.c | 2 +-
> >>> include/exec/memory.h | 2 ++
> >>> 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
> >>> index 0c4aef5cb5..cdddb089e7 100644
> >>> --- a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
> >>> +++ b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
> >>> @@ -2468,7 +2468,7 @@ static bool
> >>> vtd_process_device_iotlb_desc(IntelIOMMUState *s,
> >>> sz = VTD_PAGE_SIZE;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> - event.type = IOMMU_NOTIFIER_UNMAP;
> >>> + event.type = IOMMU_NOTIFIER_DEVIOTLB;
> >> If this is used only for device IOTLB cache invalidation, shouldn't this
> >> be named IOMMU_NOTIFIER_DEVIOTLB_UNMAP to be consistent with the rest?
> >>> event.entry.target_as = &vtd_dev_as->as;
> >>> event.entry.addr_mask = sz - 1;
> >>> event.entry.iova = addr;
> >>> diff --git a/hw/virtio/vhost.c b/hw/virtio/vhost.c
> >>> index 1a1384e7a6..6ca168b47e 100644
> >>> --- a/hw/virtio/vhost.c
> >>> +++ b/hw/virtio/vhost.c
> >>> @@ -729,7 +729,7 @@ static void vhost_iommu_region_add(MemoryListener
> >>> *listener,
> >>> iommu_idx = memory_region_iommu_attrs_to_index(iommu_mr,
> >>>
> >>> MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED);
> >>> iommu_notifier_init(&iommu->n, vhost_iommu_unmap_notify,
> >>> - IOMMU_NOTIFIER_UNMAP,
> >>> + IOMMU_NOTIFIER_DEVIOTLB,
> >>> section->offset_within_region,
> >>> int128_get64(end),
> >>> iommu_idx);
> >>> diff --git a/include/exec/memory.h b/include/exec/memory.h
> >>> index 8a56707169..215e23973d 100644
> >>> --- a/include/exec/memory.h
> >>> +++ b/include/exec/memory.h
> >>> @@ -87,6 +87,8 @@ typedef enum {
> >>> IOMMU_NOTIFIER_UNMAP = 0x1,
> >>> /* Notify entry changes (newly created entries) */
> >>> IOMMU_NOTIFIER_MAP = 0x2,
> >>> + /* Notify changes on device IOTLB entries */
> >>> + IOMMU_NOTIFIER_DEVIOTLB = 0x04,
> >>> } IOMMUNotifierFlag;
> >>>
> >>> #define IOMMU_NOTIFIER_ALL (IOMMU_NOTIFIER_MAP | IOMMU_NOTIFIER_UNMAP)
> >> shouldn't we rename this one??
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > Agree, but I'm not sure about the right name. IOMMU_NOTIFIER_ALL_ROOT?
> > IOMMU_NOTIFIER_ALL_REGULAR?
> I would rather name it IOMMU_NOTIFIER_IOTLB_EVENTS versus
> IOMMU_NOTIFIER_DEVIOTLB_EVENTS? This is the cache type that differs,
> isn't it?
>
Ok will propose it.
Thanks!
> Thanks
>
> Eric
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Eric
> >>
> >
> >
>
