Re: [PATCH 0/9][RFC] stackable dma_ops for x86

[FUJITA Tomonori]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:26:47 +0200
Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 10:16:39PM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:49:26 +0200
> > Joerg Roedel <joro@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 11:21:26PM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:21:12 +0200
> > > > Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > 
> > > > > this patch series implements stackable dma_ops on x86. This is useful to
> > > > > be able to fall back to a different dma_ops implementation if one can
> > > > > not handle a particular device (as necessary for example with
> > > > > paravirtualized device passthrough or if a hardware IOMMU only handles a
> > > > > subset of available devices).
> > > > 
> > > > We already handle the latter. This patchset is more flexible but
> > > > seems to incur more overheads.
> > > > 
> > > > This feature will be used for only paravirtualized device passthrough?
> > > > If so, I feel that there is more simpler (and specific) solutions for
> > > > it.
> > > 
> > > Its not only for device passthrough. It handles also the cases where a
> > > hardware IOMMU does not handle all devices in the system (like in some
> > > Calgary systems but also possible with AMD IOMMU). With this patchset we
> > 
> > I know that. As I wrote in the previous mail, we already solved that
> > problem with per-device-dma-ops.
> > 
> > My question is what unsolved problems this patchset can fix?
> > 
> > 
> > This patchset is named "stackable dma_ops" but it's different from
> > what we discussed as "stackable dma_ops". This patchset provides
> > IOMMUs a generic mechanism to set up "stackable dma_ops". But this
> > patchset doesn't solve the problem that a hardware IOMMU does not
> > handle all devices (it was already solved with per-device-dma-ops).
> > 
> > If paravirtualized device passthrough still needs to call multiple
> > dma_ops, then this patchset doesn't solve that issue.
> 
> Ok, the name "stackable" is misleading and was a bad choice. I will
> rename it to "multiplexing". This should make it more clear what it is.
> Like you pointed out, the problems are solved with per-device dma_ops,
> but in the current implementation it needs special hacks in the IOMMU
> drivers to use these per-device dma_ops.
> I see this patchset as a continuation of the per-device dma_ops idea. It
> moves the per-device handling out of the specific drivers to a common
> place. So we can avoid or remove special hacks in the IOMMU drivers.

Basically, I'm not against this patchset. It simplify Calgary and AMD
IOMMUs code to set up per-device-dma-ops (though it makes dma_ops a
bit complicated).

But it doesn't solve any problems including the paravirtualized device
passthrough. When I wrote per-device-dma-ops, I expected that KVM
people want more changes (such as stackable dma_ops) to dma_ops for
the paravirtualized device passthrough. I'd like to hear what they
want first.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/