[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1r5ykm180.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 05:02:23 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Weidong Han <weidong.han@...el.com>, dwmw2@...radead.org,
suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] Intel-IOMMU, intr-remap: source-id checking
Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com> writes:
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:21:14AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> * Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>> > Being a major nitpick, I have to point out that the code is not
>> > structured to support other iommus, and I think AMD has one that
>> > can do this as well.
>>
>> (Joerg Cc:-ed)
>
> The AMD IOMMU does also have an interrupt remapping feature. But it is
> currently unsupported in the Linux driver. When this is going to be
> implemented I think we can go the same way as for device passthrough in
> KVM. This was an Intel-only feature too and was later adapted to support
> AMD IOMMU too.
The Intel IOMMU is also interesting because it allows traffic from
buggy ioapcis to be remapped safely in process context, adding a large
margin of safety and flexibility to the existing irq migration
and cpu hotunplug scenarios.
Can we use the AMD IOMMU to achieve the same objective?
I would really like to say from point X on AMD and Intel systems don't
have to worry about irq migrations used caused by old buggy ioapic
state machines, which I have previously confirmed in both AMD and
Intel ioapics.
Eric
--
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