Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] Resize the MAX_NR_IO_RANGES for ioreq server

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 07/06/2015 02:09 PM, Paul Durrant wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dunlapg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:dunlapg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
>> George Dunlap
>> Sent: 06 July 2015 13:50
>> To: Paul Durrant
>> Cc: Yu Zhang; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Keir (Xen.org); Jan Beulich; Andrew
>> Cooper; Kevin Tian; zhiyuan.lv@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] Resize the MAX_NR_IO_RANGES for
>> ioreq server
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: dunlapg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:dunlapg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
>>>> George Dunlap
>>>> Sent: 06 July 2015 13:36
>>>> To: Yu Zhang
>>>> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Keir (Xen.org); Jan Beulich; Andrew Cooper;
>>>> Paul Durrant; Kevin Tian; zhiyuan.lv@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] Resize the MAX_NR_IO_RANGES
>> for
>>>> ioreq server
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> MAX_NR_IO_RANGES is used by ioreq server as the maximum
>>>>> number of discrete ranges to be tracked. This patch changes
>>>>> its value to 8k, so that more ranges can be tracked on next
>>>>> generation of Intel platforms in XenGT. Future patches can
>>>>> extend the limit to be toolstack tunable, and MAX_NR_IO_RANGES
>>>>> can serve as a default limit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> I said this at the Hackathon, and I'll say it here:  I think this is
>>>> the wrong approach.
>>>>
>>>> The problem here is not that you don't have enough memory ranges.  The
>>>> problem is that you are not tracking memory ranges, but individual
>>>> pages.
>>>>
>>>> You need to make a new interface that allows you to tag individual
>>>> gfns as p2m_mmio_write_dm, and then allow one ioreq server to get
>>>> notifications for all such writes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think that is conflating things. It's quite conceivable that more than one
>> ioreq server will handle write_dm pages. If we had enough types to have
>> two page types per server then I'd agree with you, but we don't.
>>
>> What's conflating things is using an interface designed for *device
>> memory ranges* to instead *track writes to gfns*.
> 
> What's the difference? Are you asserting that all device memory ranges have 
> read side effects and therefore write_dm is not a reasonable optimization to 
> use? I would not want to make that assertion.

Using write_dm is not the problem; it's having thousands of memory
"ranges" of 4k each that I object to.

Which is why I suggested adding an interface to request updates to gfns
(by marking them write_dm), rather than abusing the io range interface.

 -George


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel