>>> On 31.07.18 at 10:37, <paul.durr...@citrix.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Roger Pau Monne >> Sent: 31 July 2018 09:34 >> To: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com> >> Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Kevin Tian <kevin.t...@intel.com>; >> Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org>; Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com>; >> George Dunlap <george.dun...@citrix.com>; Andrew Cooper >> <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; Ian Jackson <ian.jack...@citrix.com>; Tim >> (Xen.org) <t...@xen.org>; Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com>; Jan Beulich >> <jbeul...@suse.com> >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/4] iommu: generalize >> iommu_inclusive_mapping >> >> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 09:27:03AM +0100, Paul Durrant wrote: >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: Roger Pau Monne >> > > Sent: 31 July 2018 09:16 >> > > To: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com> >> > > Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Kevin Tian <kevin.t...@intel.com>; >> > > Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org>; Wei Liu >> <wei.l...@citrix.com>; >> > > George Dunlap <george.dun...@citrix.com>; Andrew Cooper >> > > <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; Ian Jackson <ian.jack...@citrix.com>; >> Tim >> > > (Xen.org) <t...@xen.org>; Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com>; Jan >> Beulich >> > > <jbeul...@suse.com> >> > > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/4] iommu: generalize >> > > iommu_inclusive_mapping >> > > >> > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 08:18:36AM +0100, Paul Durrant wrote: >> > > > > -----Original Message----- >> > > > > From: Xen-devel [mailto:xen-devel-boun...@lists.xenproject.org] >> On >> > > Behalf >> > > > > Of Roger Pau Monne >> > > > > Sent: 27 July 2018 16:32 >> > > > > To: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >> > > > > Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.t...@intel.com>; Stefano Stabellini >> > > > > <sstabell...@kernel.org>; Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com>; George >> Dunlap >> > > > > <george.dun...@citrix.com>; Andrew Cooper >> > > > > <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; Ian Jackson >> <ian.jack...@citrix.com>; >> > > Tim >> > > > > (Xen.org) <t...@xen.org>; Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com>; Jan >> > > Beulich >> > > > > <jbeul...@suse.com>; Roger Pau Monne <roger....@citrix.com> >> > > > > Subject: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/4] iommu: generalize >> > > > > iommu_inclusive_mapping >> > > > > >> > > > > Introduce a new iommu=inclusive generic option that supersedes >> > > > > iommu_inclusive_mapping. This should be a non-functional change >> on >> > > > > Intel hardware, while AMD hardware will gain the same functionality >> of >> > > > > mapping almost everything below the 4GB boundary. >> > > > > >> > > > > Note that is a noop for ARM hardware. >> > > > > >> > > > > Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com> >> > > > > --- >> > > > > Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> >> > > > > Cc: George Dunlap <george.dun...@eu.citrix.com> >> > > > > Cc: Ian Jackson <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com> >> > > > > Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> >> > > > > Cc: Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com> >> > > > > Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.w...@oracle.com> >> > > > > Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org> >> > > > > Cc: Tim Deegan <t...@xen.org> >> > > > > Cc: Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com> >> > > > > Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.t...@intel.com> >> > > > > --- >> > > > > docs/misc/xen-command-line.markdown | 14 ++++++ >> > > > > xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/iommu.c | 4 ++ >> > > > > xen/drivers/passthrough/iommu.c | 6 +++ >> > > > > xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/extern.h | 2 - >> > > > > xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c | 6 --- >> > > > > xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/x86/vtd.c | 66 +------------------------ >> > > > > xen/drivers/passthrough/x86/iommu.c | 70 >> > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> > > > > xen/include/xen/iommu.h | 2 + >> > > > > 8 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 73 deletions(-) >> > > > > >> > > > > diff --git a/docs/misc/xen-command-line.markdown >> b/docs/misc/xen- >> > > > > command-line.markdown >> > > > > index 65b4754418..91a8bfc9a6 100644 >> > > > > --- a/docs/misc/xen-command-line.markdown >> > > > > +++ b/docs/misc/xen-command-line.markdown >> > > > > @@ -1198,6 +1198,17 @@ detection of systems known to misbehave >> > > upon >> > > > > accesses to that port. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Enable IOMMU debugging code (implies `verbose`). >> > > > > >> > > > > +> `inclusive` >> > > > >> > > > This is a dom0 (or hwdom) specific setting so perhaps dom0-inclusive? >> > > > >> > > > Actually the dom0 iommu options are starting to get unwieldy as they >> are >> > > conflated with the general host iommu options so I think it may be >> > > worthwhile splitting things out into a separate 'dom0-iommu=' top level >> > > parameter at this stage. (My reasons are slightly selfish as I intend to > add >> > > another dom0 iommu option to give it just reserved regions, to avoid >> > > unnecessary set-up if we know it will be using PV-IOMMU). >> > > >> > > Mapping just the reserved regions is what I actually do for PVH with >> > > iommu=inclusive (patch 4/4), so maybe it would make sense to speak >> about >> > > the >> > > naming here in order to use the same naming for PV and PVH. >> > > >> > > TBH I don't really like the dom0- prefix, the command line iommu >> > > options either apply to all domains or Dom0 only, having >> > > domu-inclusive for example makes no sense IMO. >> > >> > No, I think there are some options that you may want to apply to dom0 >> only, but these are more like the dom0_mem or dom0_max_vpus options. >> Particularly, the inclusive option is probably something that is only >> desirable >> for dom0. Clearly dom0-passthrough and dom0-strict are already defined to >> relate to dom0 only, and options such as 'reserved' should only be specific >> on >> the command line in relation to dom0 IMO. For other domains such an option >> should be specified via xl.cfg. >> >> Yes, we already have a bunch of those, so then I think dom0-inclusive >> and dom0-reserved would be appropriate? >> >> dom0-inclusive-mapping or dom0-reserved-mapping seems too long. > > Yes, those names are ok, but I still think it better in the long run if we > have something like: > > dom0_iommu=[inclusive,][reserved,][strict,][none,][relaxed] > > where relaxed is the default and 'none' (I think) is equivalent to the > current iommu=dom0-passthrough.
Or, along the lines of the other reply just sent, e.g. dom0=pvh,iommu:inclusive;reserved,shadow But perhaps the difference between , and ; gets too confusing then. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
