From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gleb Natapov Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] kvm: Destroy & free KVM devices on release Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:44:43 +0200 Message-ID: <20131030154443.GJ4651@redhat.com> References: <20131029160019.22578.16409.stgit@bling.home> <20131029161322.22578.18997.stgit@bling.home> <20131030104029.GE4651@redhat.com> <1383143422.4097.170.camel@ul30vt.home> <20131030153338.GI4651@redhat.com> <527128D7.9070603@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Alex Williamson , kvm@vger.kernel.org, aik@ozlabs.ru, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Paolo Bonzini Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <527128D7.9070603@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 04:42:15PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 30/10/2013 16:33, Gleb Natapov ha scritto: > > > Hmm, ok. In that case I can drop this patch and I think the rest just > > > boils down to userspace use of the device. I had been close()'ing the > > > kvm device fd when all QEMU vfio devices are detached, but I can just as > > > easily leave it open in case a new device is added later. I'll send out > > > a new series after doing some more review and testing. Do you have any > > > comments on the rest of the series? Thanks, > > > > If I understand 4/4 correctly if there is VFIO device connected we > > assume non coherent domain. How hard it would be to do proper checking > > in this path series? > > Yes, that's my understanding as well. Is the performance impact measurable? > We grant a guest permission to call wbinvd() needlessly. -- Gleb.