Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/3] tools: introduce parameter max_ranges.

["Yu, Zhang" <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 1/20/2016 11:14 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: Ian Campbell [mailto:ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 11:19 PM
> >
> > On Tue, 2016-01-19 at 15:04 +0000, Wei Liu wrote:
> >
> > This patch doesn't seem to have been CCd to the tools maintainers, adding
> > Ian too, I think everyone else was picked up along the way.
> >
> > Please use ./scripts/get_maintainers.pl in the future.
> >
> > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 02:47:40PM +0000, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > ranges so perhaps the parameter name could be
> > > > > 'max_wp_memory_ranges'?
> > > > > >
> > > > > What does "WP" mean? "Write Protected"?
> > > > Yes.
> > > >
> > > > > Is this parameter closely related to IOREQ server? Should it contain
> > > > > "ioreq" somehow?
> > > > It is closely related but ioreq server is an implementation detail so
> > > > do we want to expose it as a tunable? The concept we need to capture
> > > > is that the toolstack can tune the limit of the maximum number of
> > > > pages in the VM that can be set such that writes are emulated (but
> > > > reads are as for normal ram). Or I guess we could get very specific
> > > > and call it something like 'max_gtt_shadows'?
> > > I would prefer generic concept in this case ("wp"). Let's wait a bit for
> > > other people to voice their opinion.
> > >
> > > Whichever one we pick it the meaning of the acronym needs to be clearly
> > > documented...
> > I've got no ideas for a better name, "max_ranges" is clearly too generic
> > though.
> >
> > One thought -- does XenGT require some other configuration option to enable
> > it or maybe a privilege which the target domain must necessarily have?
> > Could we use something like one of those to cause the t/stack to just DTRT
> > without the user having to micromanage the amount of pages which are
> > allowed to have this property?
> Using "wp" is clear to me.
Thank you all. :)
So how about "max_wp_ram_ranges"? And the "wp" shall be well explained 
in documentation.
> As a feature this write-protection has nothing to be GPU virtualization 
> specific.
> In the future the same mediated pass-through idea used in XenGT may be
> used on other I/O devices which need to shadow some structure w/ requirement
> to write-protect guest memory. So it's not good to tie this to either XenGT
> or GTT.
Thank you, Kevin.
Well, if this parameter is not supposed to be xengt specific, we do not 
need to connect it with any xengt flag such as ."vgt=1" or "GVT-g=1". 
Hence the user will have to configure the max_wp_ram_ranges himself,
right?

B.R.
Yu

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