Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 01/15] re-work commit 3e06b989 "IOMMU: make page table population preemptible"...

[Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 02 August 2018 09:19
> To: Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>; Andrew Cooper
> <Andrew.Cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>; George Dunlap
> <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>; Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxx>; Wei Liu
> <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>; Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>; xen-
> devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>; Tim (Xen.org) <tim@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 01/15] re-work commit 3e06b989 "IOMMU: make
> page table population preemptible"...
> 
> >>> On 02.08.18 at 10:04, <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> From: Paul Durrant
> >> Sent: 02 August 2018 09:03
> >> > From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> >> > Sent: 02 August 2018 08:20
> >> > >>> On 01.08.18 at 15:40, <paul.durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > > ...to simplify the implementation and turn need_iommu back into a
> >> > boolean.
> >> > >
> >> > > As noted in [1] the tri-state nature of need_iommu after commit
> >> 3e06b989
> >> > is
> >> > > confusing, as is the implementation of pre-emption using relmem_list.
> >> > >
> >> > > This patch instead uses a simple count of pages already populated
> stored
> >> in
> >> > > the x86 variant of struct arch_iommu and skips over that number of
> >> pages
> >> > > if arch_iommu_populate_page_table() is re-invoked after pre-
> emption.
> >> >
> >> > Well, yes, I would have used that model in said commit if it was 
> >> > reliable,
> >> > but it isn't: What if the list of pages changed between two (re-
> )invocations?
> >>
> >> Is that really going to happen? This is the result of a domctl, which is a
> tools-
> >> only hypercall right?
> >
> > Oh, I see what you mean... the guest could do something like a
> > decrease_reservation... I was overlooking that setting up the iommu is
> > happening while the guest is live. Would it be reasonable to
> domain_pause()
> > for safety then?
> 
> I'm hesitant to see domains (or vcpus) paused other than when absolutely
> necessary. If everyone else thinks this is a good idea here, I think I won't
> object, but please don't forget that any pausing for perhaps an extended
> period of time may cause the guest to misbehave subsequently.
> 

Yes, true, but I also wonder how safe it is to empty the page_list of a running 
guest. I guess it may be the best way but I think having a dedicate page_list 
in the iommu struct to host pages that have already been mapped and then 
transfer them back at the end would be cleaner and should allow need_iommu to 
stay boolean.

Also, given the expense of the operation to set up the mappings, I guess it may 
also be a good idea to leave them alone until domain destruction once the 
set-up has been done rather than removing them when the last device is 
de-assigned.

  Paul

> Jan
> 


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel