RE: (proposal) RE: [PATCH v7 00/16] vfio: expose virtual Shared Virtual Addressing to VMs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 9:55 PM
> 
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 09:40:14AM +0000, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> 
> > > See previous discussion with Kevin. If I understand correctly, you expect a
> shared
> > > L2 table if vDPA and VFIO device are using the same PASID.
> >
> > L2 table sharing is not mandatory. The mapping is the same, but no need to
> > assume L2 tables are shared. Especially for VFIO/vDPA devices. Even within
> > a passthru framework, like VFIO, if the attributes of backend IOMMU are not
> > the same, the L2 page table are not shared, but the mapping is the same.
> 
> I think not being able to share the PASID shows exactly why this VFIO
> centric approach is bad.

no, I didn't say PASID is not sharable. My point is sharing L2 page table is
not mandatory.

Regards,
Yi Liu

> Jason




[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux