On 2018年04月12日 09:44, Tiwei Bie wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 08:37:17PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 04:38:53PM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 04:01:19PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2018年04月11日 15:20, Tiwei Bie wrote:
feature for vhost-user. By default, vhost-user backend needs
to query the IOTLBs from QEMU after meeting unknown IOVAs.
With this protocol feature negotiated, QEMU will provide all
the IOTLBs to vhost-user backend without waiting for the
queries from backend. This is helpful when using a hardware
accelerator which is not able to handle unknown IOVAs at the
vhost-user backend.

Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie<tiwei....@intel.com>
The idea of this patch is to let QEMU push all the IOTLBs
to vhost-user backend without waiting for the queries from
the backend. Because hardware accelerator at the vhost-user
backend may not be able to handle unknown IOVAs.

This is just a RFC for now. It seems that, it doesn't work
as expected when guest is using kernel driver (To handle
this case, it seems that some RAM regions' events also need
to be listened). Any comments would be appreciated! Thanks!
Interesting, a quick question is why this is needed? Can we just use exist
IOTLB update message?
Yeah, we are still using the existing IOTLB update messages
to send the IOTLB messages to backend. The only difference
is that, QEMU won't wait for the queries before sending the
IOTLB update messages.
So I have a concern with that, in that without any flow
control the socket buffer used by vhost-user might become
Each IOTLB update message needs a reply. So I think it
won't happen.

Is this what we've already done now? I don't find any statement on this in vhost-user.txt?


      Id: 22
      Equivalent ioctl: N/A (equivalent to VHOST_IOTLB_MSG message type)
      Master payload: struct vhost_iotlb_msg
      Slave payload: u64

      Send IOTLB messages with struct vhost_iotlb_msg as payload.
      Master sends such requests to update and invalidate entries in the device       IOTLB. The slave has to acknowledge the request with sending zero as u64
      payload for success, non-zero otherwise.
      This request should be send only when VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM feature
      has been successfully negotiated.

And you probably need to modify the following statement:

The master isn't expected to take the initiative to send IOTLB update messages,
as the slave sends IOTLB miss messages for the guest virtual memory areas it
needs to access.


Best regards,
Tiwei Bie

Reply via email to