Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:03:55AM +0800, Xu, Anthony wrote:
>> Isaku Yamahata wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 05:35:36PM +0800, Xu, Anthony wrote:
>>>> The new one,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> - if (phy_pte.ma != VA_MATTR_NATPAGE)
>>>>>> + /* if a device is assigned to a domain through VTD, the MMIO
>>>>>> for this + * device needs to retain to UC attribute + */
>>>>>> + if (phy_pte.ma == VA_MATTR_WC)
>>>>>> phy_pte.ma = VA_MATTR_WB;
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't this break the intention of the c/s 15134:466f71b1e831?a
>>>>> To be honest, I'm not sure. Kyouya or Akio, do you have any
>>>>> comments?
>>>>>
>>>> This section is not included, need kyouya or akio confirmation.
>>>>
>>>> Patches about mm.c is not inculded,
>>>> I'll send out a separate patch.
>>>
>>> Sounds good. the stuff in mm.c seems very tough.
>>> However the following patch still touches mm.c.
>>> Did you forget to remove it accidently?
>>
>> I didn't remove all mm.c small patches,
>> I just removed the difficult part, which is related to atomic
>> operation
>>
>> Please, check in this patch first, I had tested it by booting linux
>> guest.
>
> There is a race.
> guest_physmap_{add, remove}_page() can be called for PV domain
> simultaneously.
> The p2m table and the iommu table are updated without any lock.
> So they can be inconsistent with each other.
Iommu_un/map_page does nothing for PV domain.
Why is there a race?
Anthony
int iommu_map_page(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn, unsigned long mfn)
{
struct hvm_iommu *hd = domain_hvm_iommu(d);
if ( !iommu_enabled || !hd->platform_ops )
return 0;
>>>> diff -r 02c8733e2d91 xen/arch/ia64/vmx/viosapic.c
>>>> --- a/xen/arch/ia64/vmx/viosapic.c Wed Oct 22 17:20:15 2008
>>>> +0900 +++ b/xen/arch/ia64/vmx/viosapic.c Wed Oct 22 17:08:32
>>>> 2008 +0800 @@ -121,6 +121,13 @@ redir_num,
>>>> vector); return; }
>>>> + if ( iommu_enabled )
>>>> + {
>>>> + spin_unlock(&viosapic->lock);
>>>> + hvm_dpci_eoi(current->domain, redir_num,
>>>> &viosapic->redirtbl[redir_num]); +
>>>> spin_lock(&viosapic->lock); + } +
>>>> service_iosapic(viosapic);
>>>> spin_unlock(&viosapic->lock);
>>>> }
>>>
>>> viosapic->isr and irr must handled atomically.
>>> So unlocking and locking again breaks the requirement.
>>> (I haven't looked the viosapic code very closely, though.
>>> So I may be wrong.)
>>>
>>>
>>>> diff -r 02c8733e2d91 xen/arch/ia64/xen/mm.c
>>>> --- a/xen/arch/ia64/xen/mm.c Wed Oct 22 17:20:15 2008 +0900
>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/ia64/xen/mm.c Wed Oct 22 17:08:32 2008 +0800 @@
>>>> -1427,6 +1427,8 @@ if (mfn == INVALID_MFN) {
>>>> // clear pte
>>>> old_pte = ptep_get_and_clear(mm, mpaddr, pte);
>>>> + if(!pte_mem(old_pte))
>>>> + return;
>>>> mfn = pte_pfn(old_pte);
>>>> } else {
>>>> unsigned long old_arflags;
>>>> @@ -1463,6 +1465,13 @@
>>>> perfc_incr(zap_domain_page_one);
>>>> if(!mfn_valid(mfn))
>>>> return;
>>>> +
>>>> + {
>>>> + int i, j;
>>>> + j = 1 << (PAGE_SHIFT-PAGE_SHIFT_4K);
>>>> + for(i = 0 ; i < j; i++)
>>>> + iommu_unmap_page(d, (mpaddr>>PAGE_SHIFT)*j + i); +
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> page = mfn_to_page(mfn);
>>>> BUG_ON((page->count_info & PGC_count_mask) == 0); @@ -2844,10
>>>> +2853,16 @@ __guest_physmap_add_page(struct domain *d, unsigned
>>>> long gpfn, unsigned long mfn) {
>>>> + int i, j;
>>>> +
>>>> set_gpfn_from_mfn(mfn, gpfn);
>>>> smp_mb();
>>>> assign_domain_page_replace(d, gpfn << PAGE_SHIFT, mfn,
>>>> ASSIGN_writable |
>>>> ASSIGN_pgc_allocated); + j = 1 << (PAGE_SHIFT-PAGE_SHIFT_4K); +
>>>> for(i = 0 ; i < j; i++) + iommu_map_page(d, gpfn*j + i,
>>>> mfn*j + i); +
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> int
>>>
>>> The same loop logic. Introducing a helper function would help?
_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
|
Home