From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:45279)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1TG3Lw-0001IF-Jh
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 03:45:17 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1TG3Lq-0003fy-PB
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 03:45:16 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:23717)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1TG3Lq-0003eG-Et
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 03:45:10 -0400
Message-ID: <50600F7B.5080106@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:44:59 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJnKYQmv=k9QhcTfVzXcdqnFxZiCsZTehC8pGWeVCfBq7FX0zg@mail.gmail.com>
	<50597D1F.3070607@redhat.com>
	<CAJnKYQ=yKMNLtsQGu3ABvug+XrVr9DbGnKq3DhWE8koLKWw6Aw@mail.gmail.com>
	<505991A2.6090709@siemens.com> <5059954A.50408@redhat.com>
	<CAJnKYQmsiXPw=BknEZZb2+eEyKoKW5dakwv5TUVGR3mHLc-+VA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJnKYQmsiXPw=BknEZZb2+eEyKoKW5dakwv5TUVGR3mHLc-+VA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [big lock] Discussion about the convention of
 device's DMA each other after breaking down biglock
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: liu ping fan <qemulist@gmail.com>
Cc: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>

On 09/24/2012 08:33 AM, liu ping fan wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 09/19/2012 12:34 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>
> >> What about the following:
> >>
> >> What we really need to support in practice is MMIO access triggers RAM
> >> access of device model. Scenarios where a device access triggers another
> >> MMIO access could likely just be rejected without causing troubles.
> >>
> >> So, when we dispatch a request to a device, we mark that the current
> >> thread is in a MMIO dispatch and reject any follow-up c_p_m_rw that does
> >> _not_ target RAM, ie. is another, nested MMIO request - independent of
> >> its destination. How much of the known issues would this solve? And what
> >> would remain open?
> >
> > Various iommu-like devices re-dispatch I/O, like changing endianness or
> > bitband.  I don't know whether it targets I/O rather than RAM.
> >
> Have not found the exact code. But I think the call chain may look
> like this: dev mmio-handler --> c_p_m_rw() --> iommu mmio-handler -->
> c_p_m_rw()
> And I think you worry about the case for "c_p_m_rw() --> iommu
> mmio-handler". Right? How about introduce an member can_nest for
> MemoryRegionOps of iommu's mr?
>

I would rather push the iommu logic into the memory API:

  memory_region_init_iommu(MemoryRegion *mr, const char *name,
                           MemoryRegion *target, MemoryRegionIOMMUOps *ops,
                           unsigned size)

  struct MemoryRegionIOMMUOps {
      target_physical_addr_t (*translate)(target_physical_addr_t addr,
bool write);
      void (*fault)(target_physical_addr_t addr);
  };

I'll look at a proposal for this.  It's a generalized case of
memory_region_init_alias().

-- 
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.