Re: [Xen-devel] Discussion about virtual iommu support for Xen guest

On 5/27/2016 4:19 PM, Lan Tianyu wrote: > As for the individual issue of 288vcpu support, there are already issues > with 64vcpu guests at the moment. While it is certainly fine to remove > the hard limit at 255 vcpus, there is a lot of other work required to > even get 128vcpu guests stable.

Re: [Xen-devel] Discussion about virtual iommu support for Xen guest

On 7/5/2016 9:57 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 05.07.16 at 15:37, wrote: Hi Stefano, Andrew and Jan: Could you give us more guides here to move forward virtual iommu development? Thanks. Due to ... On 6/29/2016 11:04 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote: Please let us know your

Re: [Xen-devel] Discussion about virtual iommu support for Xen guest

>>> On 05.07.16 at 15:37, wrote: > Hi Stefano, Andrew and Jan: > Could you give us more guides here to move forward virtual iommu > development? Thanks. Due to ... > On 6/29/2016 11:04 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote: >> Please let us know your thoughts. If no one has explicit

Re: [Xen-devel] Discussion about virtual iommu support for Xen guest

Hi Stefano, Andrew and Jan: Could you give us more guides here to move forward virtual iommu development? Thanks. On 6/29/2016 11:04 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote: From: Lan, Tianyu Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 9:43 PM On 6/8/2016 4:11 PM, Tian, Kevin wrote: It makes sense... I thought you used this

Re: [Xen-devel] Discussion about virtual iommu support for Xen guest

> From: Lan, Tianyu > Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 9:43 PM > > On 6/8/2016 4:11 PM, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > It makes sense... I thought you used this security issue against > > placing vIOMMU in Qemu, which made me a bit confused earlier. :-) > > > > We are still thinking feasibility of some

Re: [Xen-devel] Discussion about virtual iommu support for Xen guest

> From: Stefano Stabellini [mailto:sstabell...@kernel.org] > Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 6:07 PM > > On Tue, 7 Jun 2016, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > I think of QEMU as a provider of complex, high level emulators, such as > > > the e1000, Cirrus VGA, SCSI controllers, etc., which don't necessarily >

Re: [Xen-devel] Discussion about virtual iommu support for Xen guest

On Tue, 7 Jun 2016, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > I think of QEMU as a provider of complex, high level emulators, such as > > the e1000, Cirrus VGA, SCSI controllers, etc., which don't necessarily > > need to be fast. > > Earlier you said Qemu imposes security issues. Here you said Qemu can > still

Re: [Xen-devel] Discussion about virtual iommu support for Xen guest

>>> On 07.06.16 at 07:14, wrote: > After some internal discussion with Tianyu/Eddie, I realized my earlier > description is incomplete which takes only passthrough device into > consideration (as you saw it's mainly around interaction between vIOMMU > and pIOMMU). However

Re: [Xen-devel] Discussion about virtual iommu support for Xen guest

> From: Stefano Stabellini > Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2016 1:15 AM > > On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, Andrew Cooper wrote: > > On 03/06/16 12:17, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > >> Very sorry for the delay. > > >> > > >> There are multiple interacting issues here. On the one side, it would > > >> be useful if we

Re: [Xen-devel] Discussion about virtual iommu support for Xen guest

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 03/06/16 12:17, Tian, Kevin wrote: > >> Very sorry for the delay. > >> > >> There are multiple interacting issues here. On the one side, it would > >> be useful if we could have a central point of coordination on > >> PVH/HVMLite work. Roger - as the

Re: [Xen-devel] Discussion about virtual iommu support for Xen guest

>>> On 03.06.16 at 15:51, wrote: > As a quick aside, does Xen currently boot on a Phi? Last time I looked > at the Phi manual, I would expect Xen to crash on boot because of MCXSR > differences from more-common x86 hardware. It does boot, as per reports we've got.

Re: [Xen-devel] Discussion about virtual iommu support for Xen guest

On 03/06/16 14:09, Lan, Tianyu wrote: > > > On 6/3/2016 7:17 PM, Tian, Kevin wrote: >>> From: Andrew Cooper [mailto:andrew.coop...@citrix.com] >>> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 2:59 AM >>> >>> On 02/06/16 16:03, Lan, Tianyu wrote: On 5/27/2016 4:19 PM, Lan Tianyu wrote: > On 2016年05月26日

Re: [Xen-devel] Discussion about virtual iommu support for Xen guest

On 03/06/16 12:17, Tian, Kevin wrote: >> Very sorry for the delay. >> >> There are multiple interacting issues here. On the one side, it would >> be useful if we could have a central point of coordination on >> PVH/HVMLite work. Roger - as the person who last did HVMLite work, >> would you mind

Re: [Xen-devel] Discussion about virtual iommu support for Xen guest

On 6/3/2016 7:17 PM, Tian, Kevin wrote: From: Andrew Cooper [mailto:andrew.coop...@citrix.com] Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 2:59 AM On 02/06/16 16:03, Lan, Tianyu wrote: On 5/27/2016 4:19 PM, Lan Tianyu wrote: On 2016年05月26日 19:35, Andrew Cooper wrote: On 26/05/16 09:29, Lan Tianyu wrote:

Re: [Xen-devel] Discussion about virtual iommu support for Xen guest

> From: Andrew Cooper [mailto:andrew.coop...@citrix.com] > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 2:59 AM > > On 02/06/16 16:03, Lan, Tianyu wrote: > > On 5/27/2016 4:19 PM, Lan Tianyu wrote: > >> On 2016年05月26日 19:35, Andrew Cooper wrote: > >>> On 26/05/16 09:29, Lan Tianyu wrote: > >>> > >>> To be viable

Re: [Xen-devel] Discussion about virtual iommu support for Xen guest

On 02/06/16 16:03, Lan, Tianyu wrote: > On 5/27/2016 4:19 PM, Lan Tianyu wrote: >> On 2016年05月26日 19:35, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> On 26/05/16 09:29, Lan Tianyu wrote: >>> >>> To be viable going forwards, any solution must work with PVH/HVMLite as >>> much as HVM. This alone negates qemu as a

Re: [Xen-devel] Discussion about virtual iommu support for Xen guest

On 5/27/2016 4:19 PM, Lan Tianyu wrote: On 2016年05月26日 19:35, Andrew Cooper wrote: On 26/05/16 09:29, Lan Tianyu wrote: To be viable going forwards, any solution must work with PVH/HVMLite as much as HVM. This alone negates qemu as a viable option. From a design point of view, having Xen

Re: [Xen-devel] Discussion about virtual iommu support for Xen guest

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 26/05/16 09:29, Lan Tianyu wrote: >> Hi All: >> We try pushing virtual iommu support for Xen guest and there are some >> features blocked by it. >> >> Motivation: >> --- >> 1) Add SVM(Shared

Re: [Xen-devel] Discussion about virtual iommu support for Xen guest

> From: Paul Durrant [mailto:paul.durr...@citrix.com] > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 4:47 PM > > > > > > A whole lot of this would be easier to reason about if/when we get a > > > basic root port implementation in Xen, which is necessary for HVMLite, > > > and which will make the interaction with

Re: [Xen-devel] Discussion about virtual iommu support for Xen guest

ong; Nakajima, Jun; > yang.zhang...@gmail.com; Anthony Perard > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Discussion about virtual iommu support for Xen > guest > > > From: Andrew Cooper [mailto:andrew.coop...@citrix.com] > > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 7:36 PM > > > > On 26/05/16 09:29

Re: [Xen-devel] Discussion about virtual iommu support for Xen guest

> From: Andrew Cooper [mailto:andrew.coop...@citrix.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 7:36 PM > > On 26/05/16 09:29, Lan Tianyu wrote: > > Hi All: > > We try pushing virtual iommu support for Xen guest and there are some > > features blocked by it. > > > > Motivation: > >

Re: [Xen-devel] Discussion about virtual iommu support for Xen guest

On 2016年05月26日 19:35, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 26/05/16 09:29, Lan Tianyu wrote: > > To be viable going forwards, any solution must work with PVH/HVMLite as > much as HVM. This alone negates qemu as a viable option. > > From a design point of view, having Xen needing to delegate to qemu to >

Re: [Xen-devel] Discussion about virtual iommu support for Xen guest

> From: Yang Zhang [mailto:yang.zhang...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 10:26 AM > > On 2016/5/26 16:29, Lan Tianyu wrote: > > Hi All: > > We try pushing virtual iommu support for Xen guest and there are some > > features blocked by it. > > > > Motivation: > > --- > >

Re: [Xen-devel] Discussion about virtual iommu support for Xen guest

> From: Lan, Tianyu > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 10:27 AM > > On 2016年05月26日 16:42, Dong, Eddie wrote: > > If enabling virtual Q35 solves the problem, it has the advantage: When more > > and more > virtual IOMMU feature comes (likely), we can reuse the KVM code for Xen. > > How big is the effort

Re: [Xen-devel] Discussion about virtual iommu support for Xen guest

On 2016/5/26 16:29, Lan Tianyu wrote: Hi All: We try pushing virtual iommu support for Xen guest and there are some features blocked by it. Motivation: --- 1) Add SVM(Shared Virtual Memory) support for Xen guest To support iGFX pass-through for SVM enabled devices, it

Re: [Xen-devel] Discussion about virtual iommu support for Xen guest

On 2016年05月26日 16:42, Dong, Eddie wrote: > If enabling virtual Q35 solves the problem, it has the advantage: When more > and more virtual IOMMU feature comes (likely), we can reuse the KVM code for > Xen. > How big is the effort for virtual Q35? I think the most effort are to rebuild all ACPI

Re: [Xen-devel] Discussion about virtual iommu support for Xen guest

On 26/05/16 09:29, Lan Tianyu wrote: > Hi All: > We try pushing virtual iommu support for Xen guest and there are some > features blocked by it. > > Motivation: > --- > 1) Add SVM(Shared Virtual Memory) support for Xen guest > To support iGFX pass-through for SVM enabled

Re: [Xen-devel] Discussion about virtual iommu support for Xen guest

If enabling virtual Q35 solves the problem, it has the advantage: When more and more virtual IOMMU feature comes (likely), we can reuse the KVM code for Xen. How big is the effort for virtual Q35? Thx Eddie > -Original Message- > From: Lan, Tianyu > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 4:30 PM

[Xen-devel] Discussion about virtual iommu support for Xen guest

Hi All: We try pushing virtual iommu support for Xen guest and there are some features blocked by it. Motivation: --- 1) Add SVM(Shared Virtual Memory) support for Xen guest To support iGFX pass-through for SVM enabled devices, it requires virtual iommu support to emulate