On Wed, 15 May 2019 16:52:46 +0100
Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> On 14/05/2019 18:55, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > Yes, I agree to replace the standalone __64 pasid with this struct.
> > Looks more inline with address selective info., Just to double
> > confirm the new struct.
> >
> > Jean, will you
On 14/05/2019 18:55, Jacob Pan wrote:
> Yes, I agree to replace the standalone __64 pasid with this struct.
> Looks more inline with address selective info., Just to double confirm
> the new struct.
>
> Jean, will you put this in your sva/api repo?
Yes, I pushed it along with some documentation
On 15/05/2019 15:47, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Jean-Philippe Brucker
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 7:04 PM
>>
>> On 14/05/2019 18:44, Jacob Pan wrote:
>>> Hi Thank you both for the explanation.
>>>
>>> On Tue, 14 May 2019 11:41:24 +0100
>>> Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>>>
On 14/05/2019
> From: Jean-Philippe Brucker
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 7:04 PM
>
> On 14/05/2019 18:44, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > Hi Thank you both for the explanation.
> >
> > On Tue, 14 May 2019 11:41:24 +0100
> > Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> >
> >> On 14/05/2019 08:36, Auger Eric wrote:
> >>> Hi Jacob,
>
On 14/05/2019 18:44, Jacob Pan wrote:
> Hi Thank you both for the explanation.
>
> On Tue, 14 May 2019 11:41:24 +0100
> Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>
>> On 14/05/2019 08:36, Auger Eric wrote:
>>> Hi Jacob,
>>>
>>> On 5/14/19 12:16 AM, Jacob Pan wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2019 18:09:48 +0100
On Tue, 14 May 2019 10:44:01 -0700
Jacob Pan wrote:
> Hi Thank you both for the explanation.
>
> On Tue, 14 May 2019 11:41:24 +0100
> Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>
> > On 14/05/2019 08:36, Auger Eric wrote:
> > > Hi Jacob,
> > >
> > > On 5/14/19 12:16 AM, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > >> On
On Tue, 14 May 2019 13:02:47 +0200
Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
> On 5/14/19 12:42 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> > On 14/05/2019 08:46, Auger Eric wrote:
> >> Hi Jean,
> >>
> >> On 5/13/19 7:09 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> >>> On 13/05/2019 17:50, Auger Eric wrote:
> >
Hi Thank you both for the explanation.
On Tue, 14 May 2019 11:41:24 +0100
Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> On 14/05/2019 08:36, Auger Eric wrote:
> > Hi Jacob,
> >
> > On 5/14/19 12:16 AM, Jacob Pan wrote:
> >> On Mon, 13 May 2019 18:09:48 +0100
> >> Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> >>
> >>>
Hi Jean,
On 5/14/19 12:42 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> On 14/05/2019 08:46, Auger Eric wrote:
>> Hi Jean,
>>
>> On 5/13/19 7:09 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>>> On 13/05/2019 17:50, Auger Eric wrote:
> struct iommu_inv_pasid_info {
> #define IOMMU_INV_PASID_FLAGS_PASID (1
On 14/05/2019 08:36, Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi Jacob,
>
> On 5/14/19 12:16 AM, Jacob Pan wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2019 18:09:48 +0100
>> Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/05/2019 17:50, Auger Eric wrote:
> struct iommu_inv_pasid_info {
> #define IOMMU_INV_PASID_FLAGS_PASID (1
Hi Jean,
On 5/13/19 7:09 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> On 13/05/2019 17:50, Auger Eric wrote:
>>> struct iommu_inv_pasid_info {
>>> #define IOMMU_INV_PASID_FLAGS_PASID (1 << 0)
>>> #define IOMMU_INV_PASID_FLAGS_ARCHID(1 << 1)
>>> __u32 flags;
>>> __u32 archid;
>>>
Hi Jacob,
On 5/14/19 12:16 AM, Jacob Pan wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2019 18:09:48 +0100
> Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>
>> On 13/05/2019 17:50, Auger Eric wrote:
struct iommu_inv_pasid_info {
#define IOMMU_INV_PASID_FLAGS_PASID(1 << 0)
#define IOMMU_INV_PASID_FLAGS_ARCHID
On Mon, 13 May 2019 18:09:48 +0100
Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> On 13/05/2019 17:50, Auger Eric wrote:
> >> struct iommu_inv_pasid_info {
> >> #define IOMMU_INV_PASID_FLAGS_PASID(1 << 0)
> >> #define IOMMU_INV_PASID_FLAGS_ARCHID (1 << 1)
> >>__u32 flags;
> >>__u32
On 13/05/2019 17:50, Auger Eric wrote:
>> struct iommu_inv_pasid_info {
>> #define IOMMU_INV_PASID_FLAGS_PASID (1 << 0)
>> #define IOMMU_INV_PASID_FLAGS_ARCHID (1 << 1)
>> __u32 flags;
>> __u32 archid;
>> __u64 pasid;
>> };
> I agree it does the job now. However it looks a
Hi Jean-Philippe,
On 5/13/19 1:20 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On 13/05/2019 10:14, Auger Eric wrote:
>> I noticed my qemu integration was currently incorrectly using PASID
>> invalidation for ASID based invalidation (SMMUV3 Stage1 CMD_TLBI_NH_ASID
>> invalidation command). So
Hi Eric,
On 13/05/2019 10:14, Auger Eric wrote:
> I noticed my qemu integration was currently incorrectly using PASID
> invalidation for ASID based invalidation (SMMUV3 Stage1 CMD_TLBI_NH_ASID
> invalidation command). So I think we also need ARCHID invalidation.
> Sorry for the late notice.
>>
Hi Jacob, Jean-Philippe,
On 5/4/19 12:32 AM, Jacob Pan wrote:
> From: "Liu, Yi L"
>
> In any virtualization use case, when the first translation stage
> is "owned" by the guest OS, the host IOMMU driver has no knowledge
> of caching structure updates unless the guest invalidation activities
>
From: "Liu, Yi L"
In any virtualization use case, when the first translation stage
is "owned" by the guest OS, the host IOMMU driver has no knowledge
of caching structure updates unless the guest invalidation activities
are trapped by the virtualizer and passed down to the host.
Since the
18 matches
Mail list logo
