[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081120075139.GB11930@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:51:39 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
Cc: muli@...ibm.com, joerg.roedel@....com,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, mingo@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] AMD IOMMU updates for 2.6.28-rc5
* FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> > > It had been the default option for AMD IOMMU until you hit the
> > > bugs. IIRC, VT-d also shares a protection domain by default. It
> > > would be nice to avoid surprising users if the two
> > > virtualization IOMMUs works in the similar way.
> >
> > Calgary has a per-bus protection domain, both on x86 and PPC.
>
> I see. Then it might be better to change VT-d to use a separate
> protection domain by default.
yes, agreed, and that should be the sane default for any IOMMU driver
- unless the performance impact is prohibitive.
Note that this widens the positive impact of the IOMMU code: not only
does it enable transparent support of DMA to/from devices that have a
limited DMA range, not only does it help isolation in virtualization -
it also acts as a daily debug helper for _native_ drivers.
Note that people will prefer to run with an IOMMU enabled even if all
devices support the full memory range - just due to the DMA protection
features. Just like people prefer to run an OS with paging protections
enabled ;-)
It also puts pressure on the hw design side to treat IOMMUs not just
as some fringe feature for compatibility with older transports or
virtualization, but also as a prime-time native IO feature.
Ingo
--
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