[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAL1RGDXZjKhA++3eFVPbazixaM7Q_JfBJyLKE0xjBs+sK55idg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:46:45 -0800
From: Roland Dreier <roland@...estorage.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, chrisw@...s-sol.org,
ddutile@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] intel-iommu: Default to non-coherent for domains
unattached to iommus
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:37 PM, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> wrote:
> This brain-damage only affects the first chipsets
> from before we worked out that cache incoherency was a *really* f*cking
> stupid idea, doesn't it?
As we talked about at KS, I have some Westmere EP (ie latest
and greatest server platform) systems where the BIOS exposes
an option that allows choosing VT-d coherency on or off, and
defaults it to "off".
What is the "official" Intel line on coherency with Westmere and
Tylersburg -- because as I also mentioned, I was seeing some
problems with VT-d and the default "coherency off" setting that
looked like the IOMMU HW is getting stale PTEs (ie a missing
or not working cache flush).
- R.
--
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