[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080628105240.GI10197@8bytes.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:52:40 +0200
From: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@...ibm.com>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, bhavna.sarathy@....com,
Sebastian.Biemueller@....com, robert.richter@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/34] AMD IOMMU: add Kconfig entry
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 08:54:59PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 12:39:45PM -0400, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 04:47:29PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >>
> >> > Also it should ideally describe that there is a trade off between
> >> > reliability and performance with IOMMU enabled.
> >>
> >> I agree that there's a performance tradeoff with current generation
> >> hardware and ingerfaces, but it wouldn't be fair to single out a
> >> single IOMMU implementation ;=)
> >
> > True. At least for the case without device isolation I have some
> > optimizations in mind which will minimize the performance tradeoff. I
> > hope to have them ready for 2.6.28 :)
>
> Not sure that would be very useful. Outside of virtualization device
> isolation is the main feature of an IOMMU on a native kernel.
I agree that device isolation is one of the a main usage scenarios for
an IOMMU. But if somebody want to use it for virtualization and doesn't
need device isolation this optimization would be usefull.
Joerg
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists