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
16 matches
Mail list logo
