[PATCH 3/4] KVM: PPC: Add support for IOMMU in-kernel handling
David Gibson
david at gibson.dropbear.id.au
Mon Jun 24 13:54:26 EST 2013
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 09:28:13AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-06-22 at 22:03 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > I think the interface should not take the group fd, but the container
> > fd. Holding a reference to *that* would keep the necessary things
> > around. But more to the point, it's the right thing semantically:
> >
> > The container is essentially the handle on a host iommu address space,
> > and so that's what should be bound by the KVM call to a particular
> > guest iommu address space. e.g. it would make no sense to bind two
> > different groups to different guest iommu address spaces, if they were
> > in the same container - the guest thinks they are different spaces,
> > but if they're in the same container they must be the same space.
>
> Interestingly, how are we going to extend that when/if we implement
> DDW ?
>
> DDW means an API by which the guest can request the creation of
> additional iommus for a given device (typically, in addition to the
> default smallish 32-bit one using 4k pages, the guest can request
> a larger window in 64-bit space using a larger page size).
So, would a PAPR gest requesting this expect the new window to have
a new liobn, or an existing liobn?
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/attachments/20130624/3c27c37b/attachment.sig>
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list