[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191128070538.GB20274@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 08:05:38 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@....com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, Michael Mueller <mimu@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>,
Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.ibm.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] virtio_ring: fix return code on DMA mapping fails
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 12:42:25AM +0000, Ashish Kalra wrote:
> Why can't we leverage CMA instead of SWIOTLB for DMA when SEV is
> enabled, CMA is well integerated with the DMA subsystem and handles
> encrypted pages when force_dma_unencrypted() returns TRUE.
>
> Though, CMA might face the same issues as SWIOTLB bounce buffers, it's
> size is similarly setup statically as SWIOTLB does or can be set as a
> percentage of the available system memory.
How is CMA integrated with SEV? CMA just gives a contiguous chunk
of memory, which still needs to be remapped as unencrypted before
returning it to the user.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists