在 2022/1/28 上午11:57, Peter Xu 写道:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 10:24:27AM +0100, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 9:06 AM Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 10:40:01AM +0100, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
So I think that the first step to remove complexity from the old one
is to remove iova_begin and iova_end.
As Jason points out, removing iova_end is easier. It has the drawback
of having to traverse all the list beyond iova_end, but a well formed
iova tree should contain none. If the guest can manipulate it, it's
only hurting itself adding nodes to it.
It's possible to extract the check for hole_right (or this in Jason's
proposal) as a special case too.
But removing the iova_begin parameter is more complicated. We cannot
know if it's a valid hole without knowing iova_begin, and we cannot
resume traversing. Could we assume iova_begin will always be 0? I
think not, the vdpa device can return anything through syscall.
Frankly I don't know what's the syscall you're talking about,
I meant VHOST_VDPA_GET_IOVA_RANGE, which allows qemu to know the valid
range of iova addresses. We get a pair of uint64_t from it, that
indicates the minimum and maximum iova address the device (or iommu)
supports.
We must allocate iova ranges within that address range, which
complicates this algorithm a little bit. Since the SVQ iova addresses
are not GPA, qemu needs extra code to be able to allocate and free
them, creating a new custom iova as.
Please let me know if you want more details or if you prefer me to
give more context in the patch message.
That's good enough, thanks.
I mean this one:
https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20211029183525.1776416-24-eperezma@xxxxxxxxxx/
Though this time I have some comments on the details.
Personally I like that one (probably with some amendment upon the old version)
more than the current list-based approach. But I'd like to know your thoughts
too (including Jason). I'll further comment in that thread soon.
Sure, I'm fine with whatever solution we choose, but I'm just running
out of ideas to simplify it. Reading your suggestions on old RFC now.
Overall I feel list-based one is both more convenient and easy to
delete when qemu raises the minimal glib version, but it adds a lot
more code.
It could add less code with this less elegant changes:
* If we just put the list entry in the DMAMap itself, although it
exposes unneeded implementation details.
* We force the iova tree either to be an allocation-based or an
insertion-based, but not both. In other words, you can only either use
iova_tree_alloc or iova_tree_insert on the same tree.
This seems an odd API I must say :(
Yeah, I just noticed it yesterday that there's no easy choice on it. Let's go
with either way; it shouldn't block the rest of the code. It'll be good if
Jason or Michael share their preferences too.
(Havne't gone through the code deeply)
I wonder how about just copy-paste gtree_node_first|last()? A quick
google told me it's not complicated.
Thanks
I have a few tests to check the algorithms, but they are not in the
qemu test format. I will post them so we all can understand better
what is expected from this.
Sure. Thanks.
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
