From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:42704)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1TIEf0-0007fV-Hh
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 30 Sep 2012 04:13:59 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1TIEez-0002k5-Lr
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 30 Sep 2012 04:13:58 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:62771)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1TIEez-0002jx-Ds
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 30 Sep 2012 04:13:57 -0400
Message-ID: <5067FF3E.7040003@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 10:13:50 +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>
	<50600F7B.5080106@redhat.com>
	<CAJnKYQ=_i0Z4uMGGa3qx8bsseFVFho0xNKVHwuyjKexhUcBgtw@mail.gmail.com>
	<50602B0A.1020403@redhat.com>
	<CAJnKYQk54Z7MpqMRzRQAiNXdRKmV=A+60uCi4rA9792eXvmNMw@mail.gmail.com>
	<50641976.3020405@redhat.com>
	<CAJnKYQnDVyX4VZG74aumpQ_qzJHPm_4o2R6MRX71OSP-yzU0Gw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJnKYQnDVyX4VZG74aumpQ_qzJHPm_4o2R6MRX71OSP-yzU0Gw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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 09/29/2012 11:20 AM, liu ping fan wrote:
> 
> Do we have iommus in qemu now, 

We do, but they're hacked into the scsi layer, see hw/sun4m_iommu.c.  I
don't know if it's a standalone iommu on real hardware or whether it is
part of the HBA.

> since there are no separate phys_maps
> for real address and dev's virt address, and I think the iommu is only
> needed by host, not guest, so need not emulated by qemu.  

Eventually we will emulate iommus for x86 too, so we need to consider them.

> If no, we
> can just reject the nested DMA, and the c_p_m_rw() can only be nested
> once, so if introduce a wrapper for c_p_m_rw(), we can avoid
> recursive big lock, right?

Don't we need that for other reasons?  If not, we can drop it for now.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function