From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=E9?= <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] iommu: set correct IOMMU entries when
 iommu_hap_pt_share == 0
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 17:15:15 +0200
Message-ID: <53441283.4060305@citrix.com>
References: <1396886524-16921-1-git-send-email-roger.pau@citrix.com>
	<1396886524-16921-2-git-send-email-roger.pau@citrix.com>
	<5343CFD4020000780000672B@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<20140408141245.GB27003@deinos.phlegethon.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <roger.pau@citrix.com>) id 1WXXkx-0006c4-78
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 08 Apr 2014 15:16:11 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20140408141245.GB27003@deinos.phlegethon.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 08/04/14 16:12, Tim Deegan wrote:
> At 09:30 +0100 on 08 Apr (1396945844), Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 07.04.14 at 18:02, <roger.pau@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> If the memory map is not shared between HAP and IOMMU we fails to set
>>> correct IOMMU mappings for memory types different than p2m_ram_rw.
>>>
>>> This patchs adds IOMMU support for the following memory types:
>>> p2m_grant_map_rw, p2m_map_foreign, p2m_ram_ro and p2m_grant_map_ro.
>>
>> I'm curious about the justification for p2m_map_foreign; the others
>> I agree with.
>>
>> I also wonder whether p2m_ram_logdirty shouldn't be treated
>> equally to p2m_ram_rw: It's clearly better to have some video
>> corruption than to kill the guest due to excessive IOMMU faults,
> 
> Hmmm.  In that case it seems better; if we're absolutely sure that we
> can't end up trying to do log-dirty for _migration_ while a guest has
> a real device passed through, then yes, we can leave them as r/w to
> the IOMMU. 
> 
> Maybe make sure at the same time that full log-dirty mode and
> needs_iommu are mutually exclusive.

Would it suffice to add something like:

case p2m_ram_logdirty:
    ASSERT(!paging_mode_log_dirty(p2m->domain));

Or are you referring to a more global check?

Thanks, Roger.