On 05/29/2013 03:45 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 05/26/2013 09:44:24 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>> On 05/25/2013 12:45 PM, David Gibson wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 04:06:57PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
>> >> On 05/20/2013 10:06:46 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>> >>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c
>> >>> index 8465c2a..da6bf61 100644
>> >>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c
>> >>> @@ -396,6 +396,7 @@ int kvm_dev_ioctl_check_extension(long ext)
>> >>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c
>> >>> break;
>> >>> #endif
>> >>> case KVM_CAP_SPAPR_MULTITCE:
>> >>> + case KVM_CAP_SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU:
>> >>> r = 1;
>> >>> break;
>> >>> default:
>> >>
>> >> Don't advertise SPAPR capabilities if it's not book3s -- and
>> >> probably there's some additional limitation that would be
>> >> appropriate.
>> >
>> > So, in the case of MULTITCE, that's not quite right. PR KVM can
>> > emulate a PAPR system on a BookE machine, and there's no reason not to
>> > allow TCE acceleration as well. We can't make it dependent on PAPR
>> > mode being selected, because that's enabled per-vcpu, whereas these
>> > capabilities are queried on the VM before the vcpus are created.
>> >
>> > CAP_SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU should be dependent on the presence of suitable
>> > host side hardware (i.e. a PAPR style IOMMU), though.
>>
>>
>> The capability says that the ioctl is supported. If there is no IOMMU group
>> registered, than it will fail with a reasonable error and nobody gets hurt.
>> What is the problem?
>
> You could say that about a lot of the capabilities that just advertise the
> existence of new ioctls. :-)
>
> Sometimes it's nice to know in advance whether it's supported, before
> actually requesting that something happen.
Yes, would be nice. There is just no quick way to know if this real system
supports IOMMU groups. I could add another helper to generic IOMMU code
which would return the number of registered IOMMU groups but it is a bit
too much :)
>> >>> @@ -939,6 +940,9 @@ struct kvm_s390_ucas_mapping {
>> >>> #define KVM_GET_DEVICE_ATTR _IOW(KVMIO, 0xe2, struct
>> >>> kvm_device_attr)
>> >>> #define KVM_HAS_DEVICE_ATTR _IOW(KVMIO, 0xe3, struct
>> >>> kvm_device_attr)
>> >>>
>> >>> +/* ioctl for SPAPR TCE IOMMU */
>> >>> +#define KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU _IOW(KVMIO, 0xe4, struct
>> >>> kvm_create_spapr_tce_iommu)
>> >>
>> >> Shouldn't this go under the vm ioctl section?
>>
>>
>> The KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU ioctl (the version for emulated devices) is
>> in this section so I decided to keep them together. Wrong?
>
> You decided to keep KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU together with
> KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU?
Yes.
--
Alexey
--
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
