> -Original Message-
> From: Michael S. Tsirkin [mailto:m...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 12:56 AM
> To: Liang, Cunming
> Cc: Paolo Bonzini ; Bie, Tiwei ;
> jasow...@redhat.com; alex.william...@redhat.com;
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 07:35:57PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 19/04/2018 19:27, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > That CONFIG_SMP here is clearly wrong but I don't really know what
> > to set it to. Also, we probably should switch virtio_wmb to dma_XX
> > barriers.
> >
> > That's actually
On 19/04/2018 19:27, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> That CONFIG_SMP here is clearly wrong but I don't really know what
> to set it to. Also, we probably should switch virtio_wmb to dma_XX
> barriers.
>
> That's actually easy. Will try to do.
Should it be dma_wmb() before updating the indices,
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 06:59:39PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 19/04/2018 18:52, Liang, Cunming wrote:
> >>> Oh you are right.
> >>>
> >>> So it's only needed for non-intel platforms or when packets are
> >>> in WC memory then. And I don't know whether dpdk ever puts
> >>> packets in WC
On 19/04/2018 18:52, Liang, Cunming wrote:
>>> Oh you are right.
>>>
>>> So it's only needed for non-intel platforms or when packets are
>>> in WC memory then. And I don't know whether dpdk ever puts
>>> packets in WC memory.
>>>
>>> I guess we'll cross this bridge when we get to it.
>> Non-TSO
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 04:24:29PM +, Liang, Cunming wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Michael S. Tsirkin [mailto:m...@redhat.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 11:19 PM
> > To: Paolo Bonzini
> > Cc: Liang, Cunming ; Bie,
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 06:07:07PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 19/04/2018 17:59, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 05:51:51PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> On 19/04/2018 17:19, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> - if we make it 1 when weak barriers are needed, the device
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael S. Tsirkin [mailto:m...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 11:19 PM
> To: Paolo Bonzini
> Cc: Liang, Cunming ; Bie, Tiwei
> ;
> jasow...@redhat.com;
On 19/04/2018 17:59, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 05:51:51PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 19/04/2018 17:19, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
- if we make it 1 when weak barriers are needed, the device also needs
to nack feature negotiation (not allow setting the
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 05:51:51PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 19/04/2018 17:19, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> - if we make it 1 when weak barriers are needed, the device also needs
> >> to nack feature negotiation (not allow setting the FEATURES_OK) if the
> >> bit is not set by the driver.
On 19/04/2018 17:19, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> - if we make it 1 when weak barriers are needed, the device also needs
>> to nack feature negotiation (not allow setting the FEATURES_OK) if the
>> bit is not set by the driver.
>> However, that is not enough. Live
>> migration assumes that it is
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 03:02:40PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 19/04/2018 14:43, Liang, Cunming wrote:
> >> 2. Memory barriers. Right now after updating the avail idx,
> >> virtio does smp_wmb() and then the MMIO write. Normal hardware
> >> drivers do wmb() which is an sfence. Can a PCI
On 19/04/2018 14:43, Liang, Cunming wrote:
>> 2. Memory barriers. Right now after updating the avail idx,
>> virtio does smp_wmb() and then the MMIO write. Normal hardware
>> drivers do wmb() which is an sfence. Can a PCI device read bypass
>> index write and see a stale index value?
>
> A
13 matches
Mail list logo