[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180711024843.GC2359@xz-mi>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 10:48:43 +0800
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, ashok.raj@...el.com,
sanjay.k.kumar@...el.com, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yi.y.sun@...el.com,
jacob.jun.pan@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/9] iommu/vt-d: Global PASID name space
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 01:22:50PM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
[...]
> +#ifndef __INTEL_PASID_H
> +#define __INTEL_PASID_H
> +
> +#define PASID_MIN 0x1
> +#define PASID_MAX 0x20000
Could I ask whether there's a reason to explicitly use 0x20000 for the
max value? Asked since I saw that the example in the spec gave 20
bits for PASID (please refer to spec ver 3.0 section 3.4.3 figure
3-8). Also I believe that's what I was told by Kevin.
I saw that the old per-iommu max value is set to 0x20000, though I'm
not sure whether that's still needed since if we're going to have
two-level pasid table then AFAIU we don't need physically continuous
memory any more (though I saw that we don't yet have two-level pasid
table implemented):
/* Eventually I'm promised we will get a multi-level PASID table
* and it won't have to be physically contiguous. Until then,
* limit the size because 8MiB contiguous allocations can be hard
* to come by. The limit of 0x20000, which is 1MiB for each of
* the PASID and PASID-state tables, is somewhat arbitrary. */
if (iommu->pasid_max > 0x20000)
iommu->pasid_max = 0x20000;
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists