On 2020/2/20 下午11:12, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 02:11:41PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
+static void vdpasim_device_release(struct device *dev)
+{
+ struct vdpasim *vdpasim = dev_to_sim(dev);
+
+ cancel_work_sync(&vdpasim->work);
+ kfree(vdpasim->buffer);
+
On 2020/2/20 下午11:14, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 02:11:39PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
vDPA device is a device that uses a datapath which complies with the
virtio specifications with vendor specific control path. vDPA devices
can be both physically located on the hardware or e
Hi Sam
thanks for reviewing the patch set.
Am 20.02.20 um 19:56 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
> Hi Thomas.
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 09:48:14AM +0100, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
>> The mgag200 driver uses an empty implementation for its encoder. Replace
>> the code with the generic simple encoder.
>>
>>
On 2020/2/21 上午12:06, Halil Pasic wrote:
Currently if one intends to run a memory protection enabled VM with
virtio devices and linux as the guest OS, one needs to specify the
VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM flag for each virtio device to make the guest
linux use the DMA API, which in turn handles the m
On 2020/2/21 上午10:59, David Gibson wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:13:09PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:06:06PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
index 867c7ebd3f10..fafc8f924955 100644
--- a/drive
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:17:48PM -0800, Ram Pai wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 03:55:14PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:06:06PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > > Currently the advanced guest memory protection technologies (AMD SEV,
> > > powerpc secure guest tech
Testing this patch is on my short-term TODO list, but I wasn't able to get
to it this week. It is prioritized.
In the meantime, I can anecdotally vouch that kernels before 4.19, the ones
using the OOM notifier callback, have roughly 10x faster balloon inflation
when pressuring the cache. So I anti
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:13:09PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:06:06PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> > index 867c7ebd3f10..fafc8f924955 100644
> > --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> > +++ b
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:31:35PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:23:20PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > >From a users perspective it makes absolutely perfect sense to use the
> > bounce buffers when they are NEEDED.
> > Forcing the user to specify iommu_plat
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 03:55:14PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:06:06PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > Currently the advanced guest memory protection technologies (AMD SEV,
> > powerpc secure guest technology and s390 Protected VMs) abuse the
> > VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATF
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:06:04PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> For vhost-net the feature VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM has the following side
> effect The vhost code assumes it the addresses on the virtio descriptor
> ring are not guest physical addresses but iova's, and insists on doing a
> translation
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:06:04PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> * This usage is not congruent with standardised semantics of
> VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM. Guest memory protected is an orthogonal reason
> for using DMA API in virtio (orthogonal with respect to what is
> expressed by VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLAT
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:06:06PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> Currently the advanced guest memory protection technologies (AMD SEV,
> powerpc secure guest technology and s390 Protected VMs) abuse the
> VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM flag to make virtio core use the DMA API, which
> is in turn necessary,
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:06:04PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> Currently if one intends to run a memory protection enabled VM with
> virtio devices and linux as the guest OS, one needs to specify the
> VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM flag for each virtio device to make the guest
> linux use the DMA API, wh
On 20/02/2020 07:58, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 04:23:24PM +, Anton Ivanov wrote:
On 13/02/2020 15:53, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 07:44:06AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On 2/13/20 2:00 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 05:3
Hi Thomas.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 09:48:15AM +0100, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> The qxl driver uses an empty implementation for its encoder. Replace
> the code with the generic simple encoder.
>
> v2:
> * rebase onto new simple-encoder interface
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Zimmermann
I look
Hi Thomas.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 09:48:13AM +0100, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> The ast driver uses an empty implementation for its encoder. Replace
> the code with the generic simple encoder.
>
> v2:
> * rebase onto new simple-encoder interface
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Zimmermann
>From
Hi Thomas.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 09:48:14AM +0100, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> The mgag200 driver uses an empty implementation for its encoder. Replace
> the code with the generic simple encoder.
>
> v2:
> * rebase onto new simple-encoder interface
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Zimmermann
>
Hi Thomas.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 09:48:12AM +0100, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> This patch makes the internal encoder implementation of the simple
> KMS helpers available to drivers.
>
> These simple-encoder helpers initialize an encoder with an empty
> implementation. This covers the requirement
Hi Thomas.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 09:48:12AM +0100, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> This patch makes the internal encoder implementation of the simple
> KMS helpers available to drivers.
>
> These simple-encoder helpers initialize an encoder with an empty
> implementation. This covers the requirement
On 20.02.20 17:31, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:23:20PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>> >From a users perspective it makes absolutely perfect sense to use the
>> bounce buffers when they are NEEDED.
>> Forcing the user to specify iommu_platform just because you n
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:23:20PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> >From a users perspective it makes absolutely perfect sense to use the
> bounce buffers when they are NEEDED.
> Forcing the user to specify iommu_platform just because you need bounce
> buffers
> really feels wrong. And obvi
On 20.02.20 17:11, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:06:05PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
>> Currently force_dma_unencrypted() is only used by the direct
>> implementation of the DMA API, and thus resides in dma-direct.h. But
>> there is nothing dma-direct specific about it: if
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:06:06PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> index 867c7ebd3f10..fafc8f924955 100644
> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> @@ -243,6 +243,9 @@ static bool vring_use_dma
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:06:05PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> Currently force_dma_unencrypted() is only used by the direct
> implementation of the DMA API, and thus resides in dma-direct.h. But
> there is nothing dma-direct specific about it: if one was -- for
> whatever reason -- to implement cus
Currently force_dma_unencrypted() is only used by the direct
implementation of the DMA API, and thus resides in dma-direct.h. But
there is nothing dma-direct specific about it: if one was -- for
whatever reason -- to implement custom DMA ops that have to in the
encrypted/protected scenarios dma-dir
Currently if one intends to run a memory protection enabled VM with
virtio devices and linux as the guest OS, one needs to specify the
VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM flag for each virtio device to make the guest
linux use the DMA API, which in turn handles the memory
encryption/protection stuff if the gue
Currently the advanced guest memory protection technologies (AMD SEV,
powerpc secure guest technology and s390 Protected VMs) abuse the
VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM flag to make virtio core use the DMA API, which
is in turn necessary, to make IO work with guest memory protection.
But VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLA
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 02:11:39PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> vDPA device is a device that uses a datapath which complies with the
> virtio specifications with vendor specific control path. vDPA devices
> can be both physically located on the hardware or emulated by
> software. vDPA hardware device
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 02:11:41PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> +static void vdpasim_device_release(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + struct vdpasim *vdpasim = dev_to_sim(dev);
> +
> + cancel_work_sync(&vdpasim->work);
> + kfree(vdpasim->buffer);
> + vhost_iotlb_free(vdpasim->iommu);
> +
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 02:11:40PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> +static int virtio_vdpa_probe(struct vdpa_device *vdpa)
> +{
> + const struct vdpa_config_ops *ops = vdpa->config;
> + struct virtio_vdpa_device *vd_dev;
> + int ret = -EINVAL;
> +
> + vd_dev = kzalloc(sizeof(*vd_dev), GF
On 19. 02. 20, 18:50, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> The ioreadX() helpers have inconsistent interface. On some architectures
> void *__iomem address argument is a pointer to const, on some not.
>
> Implementations of ioreadX() do not modify the memory under the address
> so they can be converted t
> Am 20.02.2020 um 03:32 schrieb Guenter Roeck :
>
> 0day reports:
>
> drivers//virtio/virtio_balloon.c: In function 'virtballoon_probe':
> drivers//virtio/virtio_balloon.c:960:1: error:
>label 'out_del_vqs' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-label]
>
> This is seen with CONFIG_BALLOON_
33 matches
Mail list logo
