[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v8 6/6] introduce a 'passthrough' configuration option to xl.cfg...
Hi, On 9/2/19 3:50 PM, Paul Durrant wrote: @@ -263,9 +263,17 @@ struct domain_iommu { DECLARE_BITMAP(features, IOMMU_FEAT_count);/*- * Does the guest reqire mappings to be synchonized, to maintain - * the default dfn == pfn map. (See comment on dfn at the top of - * include/xen/mm.h). + * Does the guest share HAP mapping with the IOMMU? This is always + * true for ARM systems and may be true for x86 systems where the + * the hardware is capable. + */ I am worried that such comment may rot over the time. For instance, if we either add a new architecture or decide to stop sharing PT on Arm. I vaguely recall some potential issues with the MSI doorbells that would require us to unshare the PT when they will be supported in guest. I would suggest to either refers to the implementation of iommu_use_hap_pt() or drop completely the second sentence. + bool hap_pt_share; + + /* + * Does the guest require mappings to be synchronized, to maintain + * the default dfn == pfn map? (See comment on dfn at the top of + * include/xen/mm.h). Note that hap_pt_share == false does not + * necessarily imply this is true. */ bool need_sync; }; @@ -275,8 +283,7 @@ struct domain_iommu { #define iommu_clear_feature(d, f) clear_bit(f, dom_iommu(d)->features)/* Are we using the domain P2M table as its IOMMU pagetable? */-#define iommu_use_hap_pt(d) \ - (hap_enabled(d) && is_iommu_enabled(d) && iommu_hap_pt_share) +#define iommu_use_hap_pt(d) (dom_iommu(d)->hap_pt_share)/* Does the IOMMU pagetable need to be kept synchronized with the P2M */#ifdef CONFIG_HAS_PASSTHROUGH 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 |