Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 01/15] re-work commit 3e06b989 "IOMMU: make page table population preemptible"...

[Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 02 August 2018 08:20
> To: Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>; Andrew Cooper
> <Andrew.Cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>; Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>; George
> Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>; Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>; xen-devel <xen-
> devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>; Tim (Xen.org) <tim@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/15] re-work commit 3e06b989 "IOMMU: make
> page table population preemptible"...
> 
> >>> On 01.08.18 at 15:40, <paul.durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > ...to simplify the implementation and turn need_iommu back into a
> boolean.
> >
> > As noted in [1] the tri-state nature of need_iommu after commit 3e06b989
> is
> > confusing, as is the implementation of pre-emption using relmem_list.
> >
> > This patch instead uses a simple count of pages already populated stored in
> > the x86 variant of struct arch_iommu and skips over that number of pages
> > if arch_iommu_populate_page_table() is re-invoked after pre-emption.
> 
> Well, yes, I would have used that model in said commit if it was reliable,
> but it isn't: What if the list of pages changed between two (re-)invocations?

Is that really going to happen? This is the result of a domctl, which is a 
tools-only hypercall right?

> Furthermore, with huge enough a guest even the skipping of the already
> processed several million pages may exhaust the time acceptable between
> preemption points.

Ok, I'll keep a pointer into the page list instead.

  Paul

> 
> Jan
> 


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel