[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v12 8/9] mm / iommu: include need_iommu() test in iommu_use_hap_pt()
Hi Paul, On 10/01/2018 11:51 AM, Paul Durrant wrote: -----Original Message----- From: Julien Grall [mailto:julien.grall@xxxxxxx] Sent: 01 October 2018 11:37 To: Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx>; George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>; Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>; Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 8/9] mm / iommu: include need_iommu() test in iommu_use_hap_pt() Hi Paul, On 09/27/2018 03:33 PM, Paul Durrant wrote:The name 'iommu_use_hap_pt' suggests that that P2M table is in use asthedomain's IOMMU pagetable which, prior to this patch, is not strictlytruesince the macro did not test whether the domain actually has IOMMU mappings.Well, I think we assume that iommu_use_hap_pt() will only be called when need_iommu(d) == 1.Yes.At the end, you will still need to check need_iommu(d) outside because iommu_use_hap_pt() may now return 0 for domain without IOMMU or for domain not sharing p2m with the IOMMU. Do you expect an improvement in long-term?Yes. The ultimate goal is the patch to split up need_iommu() into separate macros for 'domain has IOMMU pt' and 'domain needs explicit sync of IOMMU pt' and this seems like a logical step. For 'need explicit sync of IOMMU pt' to true then 'has IOMMU pt' clearly needs to be true, so I wanted the macro for 'sharing IOMMU pt' to have the same predicate. Make senses. It didn't occur to me that was in preparation of the next patch. For the Arm bits: Acked-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> Cheers, -- Julien Grall _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |