Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v7 9/9] vfio/type1: Handle different mdev isolation type | From | Lu Baolu <> | Date | Wed, 20 Mar 2019 13:52:52 +0800 |
| |
Hi Neo,
On 3/9/19 2:03 AM, Neo Jia wrote: > On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 04:56:23PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: >> On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 00:44:54 -0800 >> Neo Jia <cjia@nvidia.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 10:19:27AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote: >>>> This adds the support to determine the isolation type >>>> of a mediated device group by checking whether it has >>>> an iommu device. If an iommu device exists, an iommu >>>> domain will be allocated and then attached to the iommu >>>> device. Otherwise, keep the same behavior as it is. >>>> >>>> Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com> >>>> Cc: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> >>>> Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Sanjay Kumar <sanjay.k.kumar@intel.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Liu Yi L <yi.l.liu@intel.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> >>>> Reviewed-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- >>>> 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c >>>> index ccc4165474aa..f1392c582a3c 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c >>>> @@ -1368,13 +1368,40 @@ static void vfio_iommu_detach_group(struct vfio_domain *domain, >>>> iommu_detach_group(domain->domain, group->iommu_group); >>>> } >>>> >>> >>> Hi Baolu, >>> >>> To allow IOMMU-awared mdev, I think you need to modify the >>> vfio_iommu_type1_pin_pages and vfio_iommu_type1_unpin_pages to remove the >>> iommu->external_domain check. >>> >>> Could you please include that in your patch? If not, I can send out a separate >>> patch to address that issue. >> >> I figured it was intentional that an IOMMU backed mdev would not use >> the pin/unpin interface and therefore the exiting -EINVAL returns would >> be correct. Can you elaborate on the use case for still requiring the >> mdev pin/unpin interface for these devices? Thanks, > > Sure. We are using this api to fetch a pfn of a guest physical address so we can > access it for PV.
Okay, I will remove these two checks in the next version.
Best regards, Lu Baolu
| |