On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 21/02/17 10:39, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Julien.
Hi, Julien, all.
>
>
> Hi Oleksandr,
>
>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Julien Grall
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Oleksandr,
>>>
>>> On 02/17/2017 08:20 PM, Oleksandr Tyshchenk
On 21/02/17 10:39, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
Hi, Julien.
Hi Oleksandr,
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
Hello Oleksandr,
On 02/17/2017 08:20 PM, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
Hi, all.
So, as I understand we have two possible solutions for the IOMMU page
table to be
Hi, Julien.
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hello Oleksandr,
>
> On 02/17/2017 08:20 PM, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
>>
>> Hi, all.
>>
>> So, as I understand we have two possible solutions for the IOMMU page
>> table to be populated:
>> 1. When the first device is being a
Hello Oleksandr,
On 02/17/2017 08:20 PM, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
Hi, all.
So, as I understand we have two possible solutions for the IOMMU page
table to be populated:
1. When the first device is being assigned. Retrieve all mappings
from stage-2 table.
2. When the domain is being created.
Hi, all.
So, as I understand we have two possible solutions for the IOMMU page
table to be populated:
1. When the first device is being assigned. Retrieve all mappings
from stage-2 table.
2. When the domain is being created.
I would prefer the second variant.
Retrieving all mappings from P2M m
Hi Jan,
On 17/02/17 07:43, Jan Beulich wrote:
Well, in the end it's your call, but I don't think this is an acceptable
model in the general case. Quite often - see the Viridian support in
x86 Xen for a very good example - distros (XenServer in this case)
enable functionality even if a guest (Lin
>>> On 16.02.17 at 19:09, wrote:
> On 16/02/17 16:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 16.02.17 at 17:11, wrote:
>>> On 16/02/17 15:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 16.02.17 at 16:02, wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 15.02.17 at 18:43, wrote:
>>> 1
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> On 16/02/17 16:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > On 16.02.17 at 17:11, wrote:
> > > On 16/02/17 15:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > > On 16.02.17 at 16:02, wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Jan Beulich
> > > > > wrote:
> >
Hi Jan,
On 16/02/17 16:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.02.17 at 17:11, wrote:
On 16/02/17 15:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.02.17 at 16:02, wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.02.17 at 18:43, wrote:
1.
I need:
Allow P2M core on ARM to update IOMMU mapping from t
>>> On 16.02.17 at 17:11, wrote:
> On 16/02/17 15:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 16.02.17 at 16:02, wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 15.02.17 at 18:43, wrote:
> 1.
> I need:
> Allow P2M core on ARM to update IOMMU mapping from the first
>>
Hi Jan,
On 16/02/17 15:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.02.17 at 16:02, wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.02.17 at 18:43, wrote:
1.
I need:
Allow P2M core on ARM to update IOMMU mapping from the first "p2m_set_entry".
I do:
I explicitly set need_iommu flag for *
>>> On 16.02.17 at 16:02, wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 15.02.17 at 18:43, wrote:
>>> 1.
>>> I need:
>>> Allow P2M core on ARM to update IOMMU mapping from the first
>>> "p2m_set_entry".
>>> I do:
>>> I explicitly set need_iommu flag for *every* guest do
Hi, Jan.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.02.17 at 18:43, wrote:
>> 1.
>> I need:
>> Allow P2M core on ARM to update IOMMU mapping from the first "p2m_set_entry".
>> I do:
>> I explicitly set need_iommu flag for *every* guest domain during
>> iommu_domain_init() on
>>> On 15.02.17 at 18:43, wrote:
> 1.
> I need:
> Allow P2M core on ARM to update IOMMU mapping from the first "p2m_set_entry".
> I do:
> I explicitly set need_iommu flag for *every* guest domain during
> iommu_domain_init() on ARM in case if page table is not shared.
> At that moment I have no kn
Hi, Jan.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.02.17 at 16:52, wrote:
>> I think, but I am not 100% sure that we could avoid actions above if
>> we would have knowledge about device assignment for particular
>> domain before making any updates in P2M.
>
> Well, one could
>>> On 15.02.17 at 16:52, wrote:
> I think, but I am not 100% sure that we could avoid actions above if
> we would have knowledge about device assignment for particular
> domain before making any updates in P2M.
Well, one could in theory make this work for boot time assigned
devices, but since th
Hi, all.
As it was suggested by Julien in IRC I open this thread.
Currently, I am trying to add support for IPMMU in Xen.
It is VMSA-compatible IOMMU that integrated in the newest Renesas SoCs (ARM).
This IPMMU can't share the page table with the CPU since it uses
stage-1 page table
unlike the CP
17 matches
Mail list logo
