er...@vger.kernel.org" ker...@vger.kernel.org>; kon...@kernel.org; xen-
> de...@lists.xenproject.org; Christoph Helwig
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen-swiotlb: exchange memory with Xen
> only when pages are contiguous
>
> On 10/30/18 7:21 AM, Paul Durrant wrote:
> >>
t;>
>> Cc: John Sobecki ; DONGLI.ZHANG
>> ; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org" > ker...@vger.kernel.org>; kon...@kernel.org; xen-
>> de...@lists.xenproject.org; Christoph Helwig
>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen-swiotlb: exchange memory with Xen
>> only
er...@vger.kernel.org" ker...@vger.kernel.org>; kon...@kernel.org; xen-
> de...@lists.xenproject.org; Christoph Helwig
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen-swiotlb: exchange memory with Xen
> only when pages are contiguous
>
> On 10/30/18 1:59 AM, Paul Durrant wrote:
> >>
On 10/30/18 1:59 AM, Paul Durrant wrote:
>> On 10/25/18 11:56 AM, Joe Jin wrote:
>>> I just discussed this patch with Boris in private, his opinions(Boris,
>>> please correct me if any misunderstood) are:
>>>
>>> 1. With/without the check, both are incorrect, he thought we need to
>>>prevented
ker...@vger.kernel.org>; kon...@kernel.org; xen-
> de...@lists.xenproject.org; Christoph Helwig
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen-swiotlb: exchange memory with Xen
> only when pages are contiguous
>
> On 10/25/18 11:56 AM, Joe Jin wrote:
> > I just discussed this patch
On 10/25/18 11:56 AM, Joe Jin wrote:
> I just discussed this patch with Boris in private, his opinions(Boris,
> please correct me if any misunderstood) are:
>
> 1. With/without the check, both are incorrect, he thought we need to
>prevented unalloc'd free at here.
> 2. On freeing, if upper la
On 10/26/18 1:54 AM, Dongli Zhang wrote:
> If dom0 (or any domain) is happy, although it could try to exchange all its
> continuous dma pages back to xen hypervisor. From the perspective of each
> domain, they always would like to keep as much continuous dma page as
> possible.
>
> I am thinking
Hi Christoph,
On 10/26/18 12:48 AM, Christoph Helwig wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 11:56:02AM -0700, Joe Jin wrote:
>> I just discussed this patch with Boris in private, his opinions(Boris,
>> please correct me if any misunderstood) are:
>>
>> 1. With/without the check, both are incorrect, he t
Hi Joe,
On 10/26/2018 03:48 PM, Christoph Helwig wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 11:56:02AM -0700, Joe Jin wrote:
>> I just discussed this patch with Boris in private, his opinions(Boris,
>> please correct me if any misunderstood) are:
>>
>> 1. With/without the check, both are incorrect, he thoug
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 11:56:02AM -0700, Joe Jin wrote:
> I just discussed this patch with Boris in private, his opinions(Boris,
> please correct me if any misunderstood) are:
>
> 1. With/without the check, both are incorrect, he thought we need to
>prevented unalloc'd free at here.
> 2. On
Hi all,
I just discussed this patch with Boris in private, his opinions(Boris,
please correct me if any misunderstood) are:
1. With/without the check, both are incorrect, he thought we need to
prevented unalloc'd free at here.
2. On freeing, if upper layer already checked the memory was DMA-a
On 10/25/18 9:10 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 10/25/18 10:23 AM, Joe Jin wrote:
>> On 10/25/18 4:45 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> On 10/24/18 10:43 AM, Joe Jin wrote:
On 10/24/18 6:57 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 10/24/18 9:02 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 23,
On 10/25/18 10:23 AM, Joe Jin wrote:
> On 10/25/18 4:45 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 10/24/18 10:43 AM, Joe Jin wrote:
>>> On 10/24/18 6:57 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 10/24/18 9:02 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 08:09:04PM -0700, Joe Jin wrote:
>> Com
On 10/25/18 4:45 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 10/24/18 10:43 AM, Joe Jin wrote:
>> On 10/24/18 6:57 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> On 10/24/18 9:02 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 08:09:04PM -0700, Joe Jin wrote:
> Commit 4855c92dbb7 "xen-swiotlb: fix the check
On 10/24/18 10:43 AM, Joe Jin wrote:
> On 10/24/18 6:57 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 10/24/18 9:02 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 08:09:04PM -0700, Joe Jin wrote:
Commit 4855c92dbb7 "xen-swiotlb: fix the check condition for
xen_swiotlb_free_coherent" only
On 10/24/18 6:02 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 08:09:04PM -0700, Joe Jin wrote:
>> Commit 4855c92dbb7 "xen-swiotlb: fix the check condition for
>> xen_swiotlb_free_coherent" only fixed memory address check condition
>> on xen_swiotlb_free_coherent(), when memory was not
On 10/24/18 6:57 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 10/24/18 9:02 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 08:09:04PM -0700, Joe Jin wrote:
>>> Commit 4855c92dbb7 "xen-swiotlb: fix the check condition for
>>> xen_swiotlb_free_coherent" only fixed memory address check condition
>>> o
On 10/24/18 9:02 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 08:09:04PM -0700, Joe Jin wrote:
>> Commit 4855c92dbb7 "xen-swiotlb: fix the check condition for
>> xen_swiotlb_free_coherent" only fixed memory address check condition
>> on xen_swiotlb_free_coherent(), when memory was not
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 08:09:04PM -0700, Joe Jin wrote:
> Commit 4855c92dbb7 "xen-swiotlb: fix the check condition for
> xen_swiotlb_free_coherent" only fixed memory address check condition
> on xen_swiotlb_free_coherent(), when memory was not physically
> contiguous and tried to exchanged with Xe
Commit 4855c92dbb7 "xen-swiotlb: fix the check condition for
xen_swiotlb_free_coherent" only fixed memory address check condition
on xen_swiotlb_free_coherent(), when memory was not physically
contiguous and tried to exchanged with Xen via
xen_destroy_contiguous_region it will lead kernel panic.
20 matches
Mail list logo