Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] virtio: Clean up scatterlists and use the DMA API

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 08:07:15AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sep 3, 2014 5:11 AM, "Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Il 03/09/2014 10:05, Benjamin Herrenschmidt ha scritto:
> > > On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 09:47 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > >>
> > >> IOMMU support for x86 is going to go in this week.
> > >
> > > But won't that break virtio on x86 ? Or will virtio continue bypassing
> > > it ? IE, the guest side virtio doesn't expect an IOMMU and doesn't call
> > > the dma mappings ops.
> > >
> > >> However, it is and likely will remain niche enough that I don't really
> > >> care about performance loss from IOMMU support.  If you enable it, you
> > >> want it.
> > >>
> > >> So from the QEMU point of view we can simply add the direct-ram-access
> > >> property, and have the pseries machine turn it on by default (while
> > >> other machines can leave it off by default---they have no IOMMU and
> > >> thus no performance cost).
> > >
> > > Well, it's only for virtio and should be on by default on x86 as well if
> > > an iommu is installed no ?
> >
> > Yes, only for virtio---but for x86 I think it should be off by default,
> > even if that means virtio+IOMMU requires a new kernel.
> 
> Just to clarify: is "it" the direct-ram-access property?  If so, I
> think I might agree.
> 
> Alternatively, could QEMU easily teach the IOMMU code to generate the
> ACPI tables such that virtio-pci devices aren't advertised as living
> behind the IOMMU?  This would work both with and without my patches.

How exactly does this look in ACPI?

> On the other hand, maybe this gets complicated when hotplug is
> involved.
> 
> --Andy
> 
> >
> > Paolo