Hollis Blanchard wrote: > On Tuesday 29 April 2008 17:17:49 Avi Kivity wrote: > >> I like this very much, as it only affects accessors and not the mmu core >> itself. >> >> Hollis/Xiantao/Carsten, can you confirm that this approach works for >> you? Carsten, I believe you don't have mmio, but at least this >> shouldn't interfere. >> > > OK, so the idea is to mmap /sys/bus/pci/.../region within the guest RAM area, > and just include it within the normal guest RAM memslot? >
In the case of x86, since the PCI IO region is pretty far away from normal RAM, we'll probably use a different memory slot, but yes, that's the general idea. IIUC PPC correctly, all IO pages have corresponding struct pages. This means that get_user_pages() would succeed and you can reference count them? In this case, we would never take the VM_PFNMAP path. Is that correct? > How will the IOMMU be programmed? Wouldn't you still need to register a > special type of memslot for that? > That's independent of this patchset. For non-aware guests, we'll have to pin all of physical memory up front and then create an IOMMU table from the pinned physical memory. For aware guests with a PV DMA window API, we'll be able to build that mapping on the fly (enforcing mlock allocation limits). Regards, Anthony Liguori ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
