* Joerg Roedel wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 08:59:20AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Joerg Roedel wrote:
>
> > > The problem solved here is that someone wants tboot for security
> > > reasons, but doesn't want the performance penalty of having the IOMMU
> > > enabled and ca
Hi Ingo,
On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 08:59:20AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > The problem solved here is that someone wants tboot for security
> > reasons, but doesn't want the performance penalty of having the IOMMU
> > enabled and can live with the risk of an DMA attack.
>
* Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 08:51:42AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > + tboot_noforce [Default Off]
> > > + Do not force the Intel IOMMU enabled under tboot.
> > > + By default, tboot will force Intel IOMMU on, which
> > > +
Hi Ingo,
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 08:52:53AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Applied, thanks.
>
> Please don't apply it yet, I posted a few review questions.
Are your questions answered with the replies by me and Shaohua?
Joerg
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 08:41:20AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> Sorry, I wrote the wrong data. With iommu the pps is 6M pps, and without it,
> we
> can get around 20M pps. XDP is much faster than normal network workloads. The
> test uses 64 bytes. We tried other sizes in the machine (not 8 bytes tho
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 05:18:55PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 07:49:02AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > This is exactly the usage for us. And please note, not everybody should
> > sacrifice the DMA security. It is only required when the pcie device hits
> > iommu
> > hardwa
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 07:49:02AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> This is exactly the usage for us. And please note, not everybody should
> sacrifice the DMA security. It is only required when the pcie device hits
> iommu
> hardware limitation. In our enviroment, normal network workloads (as high as
>
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:42:07AM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 08:51:42AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > + tboot_noforce [Default Off]
> > > + Do not force the Intel IOMMU enabled under tboot.
> > > + By default, tboot will force Int
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 08:51:42AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > + tboot_noforce [Default Off]
> > + Do not force the Intel IOMMU enabled under tboot.
> > + By default, tboot will force Intel IOMMU on, which
> > + could harm performanc
* Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:18:35AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > IOMMU harms performance signficantly when we run very fast networking
> > workloads. It's 40GB networking doing XDP test. Software overhead is
> > almost unaware, but it's the IOTLB miss (based on our analysi
* Shaohua Li wrote:
> IOMMU harms performance signficantly when we run very fast networking
> workloads. It's 40GB networking doing XDP test. Software overhead is
> almost unaware, but it's the IOTLB miss (based on our analysis) which
> kills the performance. We observed the same performance iss
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:18:35AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> IOMMU harms performance signficantly when we run very fast networking
> workloads. It's 40GB networking doing XDP test. Software overhead is
> almost unaware, but it's the IOTLB miss (based on our analysis) which
> kills the performance.
IOMMU harms performance signficantly when we run very fast networking
workloads. It's 40GB networking doing XDP test. Software overhead is
almost unaware, but it's the IOTLB miss (based on our analysis) which
kills the performance. We observed the same performance issue even with
software passthrou
13 matches
Mail list logo
