Re: [PATCH v2 07/13] iommu: Make decision about needing IOMMU for hardware domains in advance

[Oleksandr Tyshchenko <olekstysh@gmail.com>]

Hi, Jan

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On 06.12.17 at 20:23, <olekstysh@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 25.07.17 at 19:26, <olekstysh@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> @@ -175,37 +182,6 @@ void __hwdom_init iommu_hwdom_init(struct domain *d)
>>>>          return;
>>>>
>>>>      register_keyhandler('o', &iommu_dump_p2m_table, "dump iommu p2m table", 0);
>>>> -    d->need_iommu = !!iommu_dom0_strict;
>>>> -    if ( need_iommu(d) && !iommu_use_hap_pt(d) )
>>>> -    {
>>>> -        struct page_info *page;
>>>> -        unsigned int i = 0;
>>>> -        int rc = 0;
>>>> -
>>>> -        page_list_for_each ( page, &d->page_list )
>>>> -        {
>>>> -            unsigned long mfn = page_to_mfn(page);
>>>> -            unsigned long gfn = mfn_to_gmfn(d, mfn);
>>>> -            unsigned int mapping = IOMMUF_readable;
>>>> -            int ret;
>>>> -
>>>> -            if ( ((page->u.inuse.type_info & PGT_count_mask) == 0) ||
>>>> -                 ((page->u.inuse.type_info & PGT_type_mask)
>>>> -                  == PGT_writable_page) )
>>>> -                mapping |= IOMMUF_writable;
>>>> -
>>>> -            ret = hd->platform_ops->map_pages(d, gfn, mfn, 0, mapping);
>>>> -            if ( !rc )
>>>> -                rc = ret;
>>>> -
>>>> -            if ( !(i++ & 0xfffff) )
>>>> -                process_pending_softirqs();
>>>> -        }
>>>> -
>>>> -        if ( rc )
>>>> -            printk(XENLOG_WARNING "d%d: IOMMU mapping failed: %d\n",
>>>> -                   d->domain_id, rc);
>>>> -    }
>>>>
>>>>      return hd->platform_ops->hwdom_init(d);
>>>>  }
>>>
>>> Just to double check - this change was tested on x86 Dom0, at
>>> least PV (for PVH I'd at least expect that you've did some static
>>> code analysis to make sure this doesn't put in further roadblocks)?
>>
>> I am afraid I didn't get the second part of this sentence.
>
> Understandably, since I've broken grammar in the course of
> re-phrasing a number of times before sending. Dom0 PVH isn't
> complete at this point, so I can't ask you to actually test it. But
> I want to be reasonably certain that the change you make won't
> further complicate this enabling work (you may want to also Cc
> Roger on future versions of the patch for this very reason), the
> more that on AMD we've been unconditionally using non-shared
> page tables for quite some time. (In fact I see chances that the
> change might actually help the time it takes to set up PVH Dom0,
> especially when a sufficiently large chunk of memory is being
> handed to it.)

As I understand, the current patch was tested on x86 with PV dom0
(thanks for doing that), but wasn't
tested with PVH dom0 since the latter wasn't ready. And there is some
activity for bringing PVH dom0
which the current patch may affect in a negative way (complicate, brake, etc).

What pending patch(es) or a part of already existing code on x86
should I pay special attention to?
I haven't worked with "non-shared IOMMU support on ARM" patch series
for last 3-4 months, so I could lose the context.

Sorry for the maybe naive question, but what should be done from my
side for this patch to be accepted,
except addressing comments regarding the patch itself?

Sure, I will CC Roger on future versions of this patch.

>
> Jan
>



-- 
Regards,

Oleksandr Tyshchenko

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel