Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Don't track all memory when enabling log dirty to track vram

["Zhang, Yang Z" <yang.z.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jan Beulich wrote on 2014-05-23:
>>>> On 21.05.14 at 10:37, <yang.z.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Jan Beulich wrote on 2014-05-21:
>>> You didn't in any way negate the condition of superpage support to
>>> be added post-4.4 in order for your other change to go in: Neither
>>> http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2014-02/msg01230.
>>> html
>>>  nor
>>> http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2014-02/msg01236.
>>> html  have been responded to by you. By not doing so, to me at
>>> least you implicitly accepted the condition. And by now refusing to
>>> meet it, you basically tell us that we shouldn't be doing
>>> compromises like this with you in the future.
>> 
>> I have said before I am totally unware of it. And I know it only two
>> days ago after someone told me. So please do not confuse this with
>> the thing what we are discussing now. If you think I gave a promise
>> implicitly at that time, I am sorry to let you think so.
>> 
>> As I said in previous thread, if we can prove that add hugepage for
>> the separate VT-d page table is the only choice to solve problem,
>> then now I am promising that I will do it ASAP. But till now, I
>> didn't see any point that we must to have it. To me, it is still a nice to 
>> have feature.
> 
> Btw., I think I just spotted a second thing not working without split page 
> tables:
> mem-access (which doesn't and imo shouldn't depend on !need_iommu(),
> other than mem-sharing and mem-paging) likewise has the potential of
> creating entries resulting in IOMMU faults.
> 

I don't know what mem-access is? Do you mean Xenaccess? If not, can you 
elaborate it or provide a link to help me to understand how it works?

> Jan


Best regards,
Yang



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