Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: > On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 02:28:03PM +0800, Han, Weidong wrote: >>> From f2f722515135d95016f2d2ab55cc2aaf23d2fd80 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 >>> 2001 >> From: Weidong Han <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 14:28:07 +0800 >> Subject: [PATCH] Support multiple device assignment to one guest >> >> Current VT-d patches in kvm only support one device assignment to one >> guest due to dmar_domain is per device. >> >> In order to support multiple device assignemnt, this patch wraps >> dmar_domain with a reference count (kvm_vtd_domain), and also adds a >> pointer in kvm_assigned_dev_kernel to link to a kvm_vtd_domain. >> >> Each dmar_domain owns one VT-d page table, in order to reduce page >> tables and improve IOTLB utility, the devices assigned to the same >> guest and under the same IOMMU share the same kvm_vtd_domain. > > I guess this approach is OK as since we only support direct mapping at > the moment. Once we move to pvdma, each BDF will need its own domain > for intra-guest protection. Additionally, I think this approach will
For pvdma, why each BDF will need its own domain for intra-guest protection? Weidong > actually reduce IOTLB utility, since you will have unrelated devices > with unrelated buffers competing for the same resource (IOTLB > space). But for now it's OK. > > Cheers, > Muli > -- > The First Workshop on I/O Virtualization (WIOV '08) > Dec 2008, San Diego, CA, http://www.usenix.org/wiov08/ > xxx > SYSTOR 2009---The Israeli Experimental Systems Conference > http://www.haifa.il.ibm.com/conferences/systor2009/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
