[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <87o9drxrld.fsf@morokweng.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 20:38:54 -0300
From: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.linux@...il.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Mike Anderson <andmike@...ux.ibm.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>,
Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 10/11] powerpc/svm: Force the use of bounce buffers
Hello Christoph,
Thanks for your quick review.
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 11:59:32PM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
>> From: Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>
>> SWIOTLB checks range of incoming CPU addresses to be bounced and see if the
>> device can access it through it's DMA window without requiring bouncing. In
>> such cases it just chooses to skip bouncing. But for cases like secure
>> guests on powerpc platform all addresses need to be bounced into the shared
>> pool of memory because the host cannot access it otherwise. Hence the need
>> to do the bouncing is not related to device's DMA window. Hence force the
>> use of bouncing by setting the swiotlb_force variable on secure guests.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> arch/powerpc/kernel/svm.c | 1 +
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/svm.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/svm.c
>> index 1af5caa955f5..f0576ad65cd0 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/svm.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/svm.c
>> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ static int __init init_svm(void)
>> return 0;
>>
>> ppc_swiotlb_enable = 1;
>> + swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_FORCE;
>> swiotlb_update_mem_attributes();
>
> This needs a comment.
Good point. Will add one.
If in the new scheme of things (with bus_dma_mask?) dma_capable() on a
virtio device running in a secure guest returns false, then this patch
becomes unnecessary and can be dropped.
--
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center
Powered by blists - more mailing lists