On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 17:24:44 +0200
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Note that as-is this breaks the XSK buffer pool, which unfortunately
> poked directly into DMA internals. A fix for that is already queued
> up in the netdev tree.
>
> Jesper and XDP gang: this should not regress any performance as
Hi all,
I've recently beeing chatting with Lu about using dma-iommu and
per-device DMA ops in the intel IOMMU driver, and one missing feature
in dma-iommu is a bypass mode where the direct mapping is used even
when an iommu is attached to improve performance. The powerpc
code already has a
Hi all,
I've recently beeing chatting with Lu about using dma-iommu and
per-device DMA ops in the intel IOMMU driver, and one missing feature
in dma-iommu is a bypass mode where the direct mapping is used even
when an iommu is attached to improve performance. The powerpc
code already has a
Hi all,
I've recently beeing chatting with Lu about using dma-iommu and
per-device DMA ops in the intel IOMMU driver, and one missing feature
in dma-iommu is a bypass mode where the direct mapping is used even
when an iommu is attached to improve performance. The powerpc
code already has a
On 21/11/2019 7:34 am, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Robin, does this mean you ACK this series for the powerpc use case?
Yeah, I think we've nailed down sufficient justification now for having
a generalised flag, so at that point it makes every bit of sense to
convert PPC's private equivalent.
Robin, does this mean you ACK this series for the powerpc use case?
Alexey and other ppc folks: can you take a look?
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 05:41:58PM +, Robin Murphy wrote:
> Is that a problem though? It's not safe in general to rewrite the default
> domain willy-nilly,
Well. Can you look at what intel-iommu does right now so that we can
sort that out first?
> so if it's a concern that drivers get
On 16/11/2019 6:22 am, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 06:12:48PM +, Robin Murphy wrote:
And is that any different from where you would choose to "just" set a
generic bypass flag?
Same spots, as intel-iommu moves from the identify to a dma domain when
setting a 32-bit
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 06:12:48PM +, Robin Murphy wrote:
> And is that any different from where you would choose to "just" set a
> generic bypass flag?
Same spots, as intel-iommu moves from the identify to a dma domain when
setting a 32-bit mask. But that means once a 32-bit mask is set we
On 14/11/2019 7:41 am, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 02:45:15PM +, Robin Murphy wrote:
In all honesty, this seems silly. If we can set a per-device flag to say
"oh, bypass these ops and use some other ops instead", then we can just as
easily simply give the device the
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 02:45:15PM +, Robin Murphy wrote:
> In all honesty, this seems silly. If we can set a per-device flag to say
> "oh, bypass these ops and use some other ops instead", then we can just as
> easily simply give the device the appropriate ops in the first place.
>
On 13/11/2019 1:37 pm, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Hi all,
I've recently beeing chatting with Lu about using dma-iommu and
per-device DMA ops in the intel IOMMU driver, and one missing feature
in dma-iommu is a bypass mode where the direct mapping is used even
when an iommu is attached to improve
Hi all,
I've recently beeing chatting with Lu about using dma-iommu and
per-device DMA ops in the intel IOMMU driver, and one missing feature
in dma-iommu is a bypass mode where the direct mapping is used even
when an iommu is attached to improve performance. The powerpc
code already has a
13 matches
Mail list logo
