qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [PATCH v1 15/22] Add iommufd configure option


From: Alex Williamson
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 15/22] Add iommufd configure option
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2023 12:01:42 -0600

On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 03:42:20 +0000
"Duan, Zhenzhong" <zhenzhong.duan@intel.com> wrote:

> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Cédric Le Goater <clg@redhat.com>
> >Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 1:08 AM
> >Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 15/22] Add iommufd configure option
> >
> >On 8/30/23 12:37, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:  
> >> This adds "--enable-iommufd/--disable-iommufd" to enable or disable
> >> iommufd support, enabled by default.  
> >
> >Why would someone want to disable support at compile time ? It might  
> 
> For those users who only want to support legacy container feature?
> Let me know if you still prefer to drop this patch, I'm fine with that.
> 
> >have been useful for dev but now QEMU should self-adjust at runtime
> >depending only on the host capabilities AFAIUI. Am I missing something ?  
> 
> IOMMUFD doesn't support all features of legacy container, so QEMU
> doesn't self-adjust at runtime by checking if host supports IOMMUFD.
> We need to specify it explicitly to use IOMMUFD as below:
> 
>     -object iommufd,id=iommufd0
>     -device vfio-pci,host=0000:02:00.0,iommufd=iommufd0

There's an important point here that maybe we've let slip for too long.
Laine had asked in an internal forum whether the switch to IOMMUFD was
visible to the guest.  I replied that it wasn't, but this note about
IOMMUFD vs container features jogged my memory that I think we still
lack p2p support with IOMMUFD, ie. IOMMU mapping of device MMIO.  It
seemed like there was something else too, but I don't recall without
some research.

Ideally we'd have feature parity and libvirt could simply use the
native IOMMUFD interface whenever both the kernel and QEMU support it.

Without that parity, when does libvirt decide to use IOMMUFD?

How would libvirt know if some future IOMMUFD does have parity?

Does the XML direct this through some new interpretation of the driver
field? ex. "vfio-container" vs "vfio-iommufd" where "vfio" becomes an
alias or priority preference.  Thanks,

Alex




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]