Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH 00/13] VT-d replay and misc cleanup

[Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 06:36:15PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> This RFC series is a continue work for Aviv B.D.'s vfio enablement
> series with vt-d. Aviv has done a great job there, and what we still
> lack there are mostly the following:
> 
> (1) VFIO got duplicated IOTLB notifications due to splitted VT-d IOMMU
>     memory region.
> 
> (2) VT-d still haven't provide a correct replay() mechanism (e.g.,
>     when IOMMU domain switches, things will broke).
> 
> Here I'm trying to solve the above two issues.
> 
> (1) is solved by patch 7, (2) is solved by patch 11-12.
> 
> Basically it contains the following:
> 
> patch 1:    picked up from Jason's vhost DMAR series, which is a bugfix
> 
> patch 2-6:  Cleanups/Enhancements for existing vt-d codes (please see
>             specific commit message for details, there are patches
>             that I thought may be suitable for 2.8 as well, but looks
>             like it's too late)
> 
> patch 7:    Solve the issue that vfio is notified more than once for
>             IOTLB notifications with Aviv's patches
> 
> patch 8-10: Some trivial memory APIs added for further patches, and
>             add customize replay() support for MemoryRegion (I see
>             Aviv's latest v7 contains similar replay, I can rebase
>             onto that, merely the same thing)
> 
> patch 11:   Provide a valid vt-d replay() callback, using page walk
> 
> patch 12:   Enable the domain switch support - we replay() when
>             context entry got invalidated
> 
> patch 13:   Enhancement for existing invalidation notification,
>             instead of using translate() for each page, we leverage
>             the new vtd_page_walk() interface, which should be faster.
> 
> I would glad to hear about any review comments for above patches
> (especially patch 8-13, which is the main part of this series),
> especially any issue I missed in the series.

Hi, Michael,

Could you help have a look on this series? Hope we can move this
series forward a bit since it's still lack of review.

Btw, IMHO we can merge patch 1 now since people might encounter issue
without it (and it has been dangling quite a long time upstream).

Thanks,

-- peterx