The existing KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE only supports 32bit windows which is not
enough for directly mapped windows as the guest can get more than 4GB.
This adds KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE_64 ioctl and advertises it
via KVM_CAP_SPAPR_TCE_64 capability.
Since 64bit windows are to support Dynamic DMA windows
On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 17:25 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
+This creates a virtual TCE (translation control entry) table, which
+is an IOMMU for PAPR-style virtual I/O. It is used to translate
+logical addresses used in virtual I/O into guest physical addresses,
+and provides a
On 06/05/2014 05:38 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 17:25 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
+This creates a virtual TCE (translation control entry) table, which
+is an IOMMU for PAPR-style virtual I/O. It is used to translate
+logical addresses used in virtual I/O
On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 19:26 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
No trees yet. For 64GB window we need (6430)/(1620)*8 = 32K TCE table.
Do we really need trees?
The above is assuming hugetlbfs backed guests. These are the least of my worry
indeed. But we need to deal with 4k and 64k guests.
On 05.06.14 12:27, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 19:26 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
No trees yet. For 64GB window we need (6430)/(1620)*8 = 32K TCE table.
Do we really need trees?
The above is assuming hugetlbfs backed guests. These are the least of my worry
On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 13:56 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
What if we ask user space to give us a pointer to user space allocated
memory along with the TCE registration? We would still ask user space to
only use the returned fd for TCE modifications, but would have some
nicely swappable
On 05.06.14 14:30, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 13:56 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
What if we ask user space to give us a pointer to user space allocated
memory along with the TCE registration? We would still ask user space to
only use the returned fd for TCE
On 06/05/2014 10:30 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 13:56 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
What if we ask user space to give us a pointer to user space allocated
memory along with the TCE registration? We would still ask user space to
only use the returned fd for TCE
The existing KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE only supports 32bit windows which is not
enough for directly mapped windows as the guest can get more than 4GB.
This adds KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE_64 ioctl and advertises it
via KVM_CAP_SPAPR_TCE_64 capability.
Since 64bit windows are to support Dynamic DMA windows
On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 17:25 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
+This creates a virtual TCE (translation control entry) table, which
+is an IOMMU for PAPR-style virtual I/O. It is used to translate
+logical addresses used in virtual I/O into guest physical addresses,
+and provides a
On 06/05/2014 05:38 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 17:25 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
+This creates a virtual TCE (translation control entry) table, which
+is an IOMMU for PAPR-style virtual I/O. It is used to translate
+logical addresses used in virtual I/O
On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 19:26 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
No trees yet. For 64GB window we need (6430)/(1620)*8 = 32K TCE table.
Do we really need trees?
The above is assuming hugetlbfs backed guests. These are the least of my worry
indeed. But we need to deal with 4k and 64k guests.
On 05.06.14 12:27, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 19:26 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
No trees yet. For 64GB window we need (6430)/(1620)*8 = 32K TCE table.
Do we really need trees?
The above is assuming hugetlbfs backed guests. These are the least of my worry
On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 13:56 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
What if we ask user space to give us a pointer to user space allocated
memory along with the TCE registration? We would still ask user space to
only use the returned fd for TCE modifications, but would have some
nicely swappable
On 05.06.14 14:30, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 13:56 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
What if we ask user space to give us a pointer to user space allocated
memory along with the TCE registration? We would still ask user space to
only use the returned fd for TCE
On 06/05/2014 10:30 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 13:56 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
What if we ask user space to give us a pointer to user space allocated
memory along with the TCE registration? We would still ask user space to
only use the returned fd for TCE
16 matches
Mail list logo
