Re: [PATCH V2] VFIO driver: Non-privileged user level PCI drivers

[Tom Lyon <pugs@lyon-about.com>]

On Wednesday 30 June 2010 09:16:23 pm Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 14:21 -0700, Tom Lyon wrote:
> > +int vfio_dma_unmap_dm(struct vfio_listener *listener, struct vfio_dma_map *dmp)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long start, npage;
> > +	struct dma_map_page *mlp;
> > +	struct list_head *pos, *pos2;
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	start = dmp->vaddr & ~PAGE_SIZE;
> > +	npage = dmp->size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > +
> > +	ret = -ENXIO;
> > +	mutex_lock(&listener->vdev->dgate);
> > +	list_for_each_safe(pos, pos2, &listener->dm_list) {
> > +		mlp = list_entry(pos, struct dma_map_page, list);
> > +		if (dmp->vaddr != mlp->vaddr || mlp->npage != npage)
> > +			continue;
> > +		ret = 0;
> > +		vfio_dma_unmap(listener, mlp);
> > +		break;
> > +	}
> 
> Hi Tom,
> 
> Shouldn't we be matching the mlp based on daddr instead of vaddr?  We
> can have multiple dma address pointing at the same virtual address, so
> dma address is the unique element.  I'm also nervous about this dm_list.
> For qemu device assignment, we're potentially statically mapping many GB
> of iova space.  It seems like this could get incredibly bloated and
> slow.  Thanks,
> 
> Alex

In weird circumstances, differing user vaddrs could reolve to the same physical address,
so the uniqueness of any mapping is the <vaddr,len>.

Yes, a linear list is slow, but does qemu need a lot of mappings, or just big ones?
> 
>