>
> > Perhaps we just need an ioctl where an X server can switch this.
>
> Switch what? Turn on or off transparent translation?
Turn on/off bypass for its device.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More
On Tuesday, June 26, 2007 10:31:57 Andi Kleen wrote:
> > >>(and I think it mostly already doesn't even without that)
> > >
> > >It uses /sys/bus/pci/* which is not any better as seen from the
> > > IOMMU.
> > >
> > >Any interface will need to be explicit because user space needs to
> > > know which
> >>(and I think it mostly already doesn't even without that)
> >
> >It uses /sys/bus/pci/* which is not any better as seen from the IOMMU.
> >
> >Any interface will need to be explicit because user space needs to know
> >which
> >DMA addresses to put into the hardware. It's not enough to just
>
Andi Kleen wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 08:15:05AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
Also the user interface for X server case needs more work.
actually with the mode setting of X moving into the kernel... X won't
use /dev/mem anymore at all
We'll see if that happens. It has been talked about
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 08:48:04AM -0700, Keshavamurthy, Anil S wrote:
> Our initial benchmark results showed we had around 3% extra CPU
> utilization overhead when compared to native(i.e without IOMMU).
> Again, our benchmark was on small SMP machine and we used iperf and
> a 1G ethernet cards.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:11:25AM -0400, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 08:03:59AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> > >How much? we have numbers (to be presented at OLS later this week)
> > >that show that on bare-metal an IOMMU can cost as much as 15%-
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:09:40AM -0400, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 05:56:49PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > > > - The IOMMU can merge sg lists into a single virtual block. This could
> > > > potentially speed up SG IO when the device is slow walking SG
> > > > lists. [I l
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 08:15:05AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >
> >Also the user interface for X server case needs more work.
> >
>
> actually with the mode setting of X moving into the kernel... X won't
> use /dev/mem anymore at all
We'll see if that happens. It has been talked about fore
Also the user interface for X server case needs more work.
actually with the mode setting of X moving into the kernel... X won't
use /dev/mem anymore at all
(and I think it mostly already doesn't even without that)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 08:03:59AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> >How much? we have numbers (to be presented at OLS later this week)
> >that show that on bare-metal an IOMMU can cost as much as 15%-30% more
> >CPU utilization for an IO intensive workload (netperf). It wi
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 05:56:49PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > - The IOMMU can merge sg lists into a single virtual block. This could
> > > potentially speed up SG IO when the device is slow walking SG
> > > lists. [I long ago benchmarked 5% on some block benchmark with
> > > an old MPT Fusion
Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
How much? we have numbers (to be presented at OLS later this week)
that show that on bare-metal an IOMMU can cost as much as 15%-30% more
CPU utilization for an IO intensive workload (netperf). It will be
interesting to see comparable numbers for VT-d.
for VT-d it is a LO
Muli Ben-Yehuda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 09:12:45AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > There are some potential performance benefits too:
> > - When you have a device that cannot address the complete address range
> > an IOMMU can remap its memory instead of bounce buffer
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 09:12:45AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> There are some potential performance benefits too:
> - When you have a device that cannot address the complete address range
> an IOMMU can remap its memory instead of bounce buffering. Remapping
> is likely cheaper than copying.
But
On Tuesday 26 June 2007 08:45:50 Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:37:01 -0700 "Keshavamurthy, Anil S" <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This patch supports the upcomming Intel IOMMU hardware
> > a.k.a. Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O
> > Architecture
>
> So
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:37:01 -0700 "Keshavamurthy, Anil S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> This patch supports the upcomming Intel IOMMU hardware
> a.k.a. Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O
> Architecture
So... what's all this code for?
I assume that the intent here is to
Hi All,
This patch supports the upcomming Intel IOMMU hardware
a.k.a. Intel(R) Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O
Architecture and the hardware spec for the same can be found here
http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm
This version of the patches incorpor
17 matches
Mail list logo
