From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56835) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YstHB-0007wV-8A for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 May 2015 09:34:14 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YstH7-0005uS-UL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 May 2015 09:34:13 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:60446) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YstH7-0005tz-L2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 May 2015 09:34:09 -0400 Message-ID: <5554A445.8090709@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 15:33:57 +0200 From: Laszlo Ersek MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1431516714-25816-1-git-send-email-drjones@redhat.com> <20150514103150.GA12812@localhost.localdomain> <20150514130318.GC12812@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC/RFT PATCH v2 0/3] KVM: Introduce KVM_MEM_UNCACHED List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell , Andrew Jones Cc: Ard Biesheuvel , Marc Zyngier , Catalin Marinas , QEMU Developers , Alexander Graf , Paolo Bonzini , "kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" , Christoffer Dall On 05/14/15 15:11, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 14 May 2015 at 14:03, Andrew Jones wrote: >> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:37:46AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> On 14 May 2015 at 11:31, Andrew Jones wrote: >>>> Forgot to (4): switch from setting userspace's mapping to >>>> device memory to normal, non-cacheable. Using device memory >>>> caused a problem that Alex Graf found, and Peter Maydell suggested >>>> using normal, non-cacheable instead. >>> >>> Did you check that non-cacheable is definitely the correct >>> kind of Normal memory attribute we want? (ie not write-through). >> >> I was concerned that write-through wouldn't be sufficient. If the >> guest writes to its non-cached memory, and QEMU needs to see what >> it wrote, then won't write-through fail to work? Unless we some >> how invalidate the cache first? > > Well, I meant more that the correct mapping for userspace is > the same as the guest, whatever that is, and so somebody needs > to look at what the guest actually does I think Ard explored this earlier, by tracking the MAIRs and stuff. Can't recall what the findings were though. (Or I could be simply confused, sorry.) Laszlo > rather than merely > hoping NormalNC is OK. (For instance, do we need to provide > support for QEMU to map both NC and writethrough?) > > -- PMM >