>>> On 09.06.16 at 13:12, <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote: > On 08/06/16 09:58, Xu, Quan wrote: >> From: Quan Xu <quan...@intel.com> >> >> Signed-off-by: Quan Xu <quan...@intel.com> >> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> >> >> CC: Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org> >> CC: Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com> >> CC: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> >> CC: Kevin Tian <kevin.t...@intel.com> >> --- >> xen/arch/arm/p2m.c | 4 +++- >> xen/common/memory.c | 12 ++++++++++-- >> xen/drivers/passthrough/iommu.c | 13 +++++++++---- >> xen/drivers/passthrough/x86/iommu.c | 5 +++-- >> xen/include/xen/iommu.h | 5 +++-- >> 5 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/p2m.c b/xen/arch/arm/p2m.c >> index 6a19c57..65d8f1a 100644 >> --- a/xen/arch/arm/p2m.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/p2m.c >> @@ -1178,7 +1178,9 @@ out: >> if ( flush ) >> { >> flush_tlb_domain(d); >> - iommu_iotlb_flush(d, sgfn, egfn - sgfn); >> + ret = iommu_iotlb_flush(d, sgfn, egfn - sgfn); > > Sorry for coming late in the discussion. What kind of error do you > expect to return with iommu_tlb_flush? > > Today the ARM SMMU will always return 0 if the TLB flush timeout (see > arm_smmu_tlb_inv_context). > > We may want in the future to return an error when it has timeout, > however only returning an error is not safe at all. The TLB may contain > entries which are invalid (because we remove the mapping earlier) and a > device/domain could take advantage of that. > > So I am not sure if we should let running the guest when a flush has > timeout. Any thoughts?
Well, did you look at the rest of this series, and the other dependent one? Guests (other than Dom0) get crashed when a flush times out. I guess that's what you will want on ARM then too. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel