WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] Dom0 hypercall for adding and removing PCI devices

To: "Han, Weidong" <weidong.han@xxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Dom0 hypercall for adding and removing PCI devices
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:10:22 +0100
Cc: joshua.levasseur@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Li, Xin B" <xin.b.li@xxxxxxxxx>, "Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>, espen.skoglund@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:10:58 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <0122C7C995D32147B66BF4F440D301630167FE74@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcjsoyzrD56bd9JvSOmaq0goPi5bgQAAMJ1c
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] Dom0 hypercall for adding and removing PCI devices
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.4.0.080122
On 23/7/08 10:04, "Han, Weidong" <weidong.han@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 1) Add a check in domain_context_unmap_one(), don't remove the device
> from dom0 if it has RMRR. This check is added yesterday. But it's not
> clean enough. The device is not assigned to dom0, while it is mapped in
> dom0 VT-d page table.
> 
> 2) Establish a separate RMRR page table. If the device with RMRR is
> removed from dom0, unmap it from dom0 VT-d page table, instead map it to
> the separate RMRR page table. This solution is clean, but it introduces
> a new VT-d page table. Currently each domain has only one VT-d page
> table.
> 
> What's your opinions?

So this would be one extra VT-d pagetable, for the whole system, which would
be the fallback location for RMRR mappings for devices which are currently
not assigned to any domain? Thus allowing firmware to successfully initiate
DMA operations on those devices? Sounds sensible.

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel