Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 00/18] VT-d: vfio enablement and misc enhances

[Peter Xu]

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 04:26:59PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:48:37PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 04:48:49PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 07:49:10PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 06:25:53PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > > This is v5 of vt-d vfio enablement series.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Most of the changes in v5 is not functionally, but related to
> > > > > comments, error_report()s, debugging, squashing patches, etc. (which
> > > > > are confirmed changes in v4), besides a tiny tweak when unmapping a
> > > > > whole address space (please see below changelog). There are still
> > > > > discussions in v4 thread, we can just continue there (or here), and
> > > > > from this version I'll remove RFC tag.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I didn't rebase to master since current master failed to build on my
> > > > > laptop (with a "vl.c/hax..." error), however this series should be
> > > > > okay to be applied cleanly upon it.
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry I forgot to append the todo list (please help adding in in case
> > > > I missed anything):
> > > > 
> > > > - don't need to notify IOTLB (psi/gsi/global) invalidations to devices
> > > >   that with ATS enabled
> > > > - investigate when guest map page while mask contains existing mapped
> > > >   pages (e.g. map 12k-16k first, then map 0-12k)
> > > > - coalesce unmap during page walk (currently, we send it once per
> > > >   page)
> > > > - when do PSI for unmap, whether we can send one notify directly
> > > >   instead of walking over the page table?
> > > > 
> > > > Above does not contain those that are still during discussion. And,
> > > > some of the entries still need tests to further prove it's
> > > > feasibility.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > 
> > > > -- peterx
> > > 
> > > While valid I don't think above need to block merging.
> > 
> > Sorry for the delay of this series.
> > 
> > Looks like we still need to wait until we got explicit acks for vfio
> > patch 2-3 from Alex/Paolo/David since that'll be required by the
> > following series. (I'll address all Jason's new comments as well in
> > next post)
> > 
> > Do you like to merge the iommu cleanups first? Or you can also wait
> > for above to be confirmed, and I'll repost for a final version then
> > (if we don't have further comments).
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > -- peterx
> 
> I can do that. If you want me to, pls post just the patches
> that are ready separately.

Thanks for the offer!

Since I see that currently the only uncertainty of this series would
be the impact that patch 3 might bring to Power, I'll prefer we wait
for several more days until David's back (I suppose it's next Monday
or so), to see whether I can send a complete final version.

Thanks,

-- peterx