linux-pci.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
To: Ilya Lesokhin <ilyal@mellanox.com>
Cc: "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
	"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"bhelgaas@google.com" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	Adi Menachem <adim@mellanox.com>
Subject: Re: Shouldn't VFIO virtualize the ATS capability?
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 08:07:46 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161109080746.24dd79dd@t450s.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR0502MB29579BD9AA9A2E85288798E4D4B90@VI1PR0502MB2957.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 14:49:02 +0000
Ilya Lesokhin <ilyal@mellanox.com> wrote:

> I would virtualize the "ATS Control Register".

And do what?

> Regarding poor behavior, I couldn't really find what happens when ATS is misconfigured, but I would assume it can cause problems.
> The scenarios I'm concerned about are:
> 	1. The guest enables translation caching, while the hypervisor thinks there are disabled -> Hypervisor won't issue invalidations.

Aren't invalidations issued by the iommu, why does the hypervisor need
to participate?  How would a software entity induce an invalidation?

> 	2. Smallest Translation Unit misconfiguration. Not sure if it will cause invalid access or only poor caching behavior.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ilya
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alex Williamson [mailto:alex.williamson@redhat.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2016 7:09 PM
> > To: Ilya Lesokhin <ilyal@mellanox.com>
> > Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; bhelgaas@google.com
> > Subject: Re: Shouldn't VFIO virtualize the ATS capability?
> > 
> > On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 11:13:09 +0000
> > Ilya Lesokhin <ilyal@mellanox.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > Hi
> > > I've noticed that VFIO doesn't virtualize the ATS capability.
> > > It seems to me that translation caching and Smallest Translation Unit is  
> > something you would want to control on the host. Am I wrong?
> > 
> > What about those fields would we virtualize?  Why does the host need to be
> > an intermediary?  Can the user induce poor behavior with direct access to
> > them?  Thanks,
> > 
> > Alex  


  reply	other threads:[~2016-11-09 15:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-11-06 11:13 Shouldn't VFIO virtualize the ATS capability? Ilya Lesokhin
2016-11-06 17:08 ` Alex Williamson
2016-11-09 14:49   ` Ilya Lesokhin
2016-11-09 15:07     ` Alex Williamson [this message]
2016-11-09 15:25       ` Ilya Lesokhin
2016-11-09 15:53         ` Alex Williamson
2016-11-09 15:55           ` Ilya Lesokhin
2016-12-01 23:22             ` Alex Williamson
2016-12-02  7:45               ` Ilya Lesokhin
2016-12-02 15:58                 ` Alex Williamson
2016-12-05  7:07                   ` Ilya Lesokhin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20161109080746.24dd79dd@t450s.home \
    --to=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
    --cc=adim@mellanox.com \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=ilyal@mellanox.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).