[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrVopuN6s7ZTa4ZRe1E1wPiWy_2gMR_OH2B2rK0+VdeWVg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 21:33:07 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
Sebastian Ott <sebott@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] virtio core DMA API conversion
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
<benh@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 18:18 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> Which leaves the special case of Xen, where even preexisting devices
>> don't bypass the IOMMU. Can we keep this specific to powerpc and
>> sparc? On x86, this problem is basically nonexistent, since the IOMMU
>> is properly self-describing.
>>
>> IOW, I think that on x86 we should assume that all virtio devices
>> honor the IOMMU.
>
> You don't like performances ? :-)
This should have basically no effect. Every non-experimental x86
virtio setup in existence either doesn't work at all (Xen) or has DMA
ops that are no-ops.
--Andy
--
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