On 07/06/2016 07:48 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 06/07/2016 06:02, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
May I ask you what the exact issue you have with this interface for
Intel to support
your own GPU virtualization?
Intel's vGPU can work with this framework. We really appreciate your
/ nvidia's
contribution.
Then, I don't think we should embargo Paolo's patch.
This patchset is specific for the framework design, i.e, mapping memory when
fault happens rather than mmap(), and this design is exact what we are
discussing for nearly two days.
I disagree, this patch fixes a bug because what Neo is doing is legal.
It may not be the design that will be committed, but the bug they found
in KVM is real.
I just worried if we really need fault-on-demand for device memory, i.e,
if device memory overcommit is safe enough.
It lacks a graceful way to recover the workload if the resource is really
overloaded. Unlike with normal memory, host kernel and guest kernel can not
do anything except killing the VM under this case. So the VM get crashed
due to device emulation, that is not safe as the device can be accessed in
userspace even with unprivileged user, it is vulnerable in data center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
