[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200622115347.GG3701@8bytes.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:53:48 +0200
From: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@...aro.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
jean-philippe <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
kenneth-lee-2012@...mail.com, Wangzhou <wangzhou1@...ilicon.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Introduce PCI_FIXUP_IOMMU
On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 12:41:04PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> I found this [1] from Paul Menzel, which was a slowdown caused by
> quirk_usb_early_handoff(). I think the real problem is individual
> quirks that take a long time.
>
> The PCI_FIXUP_IOMMU things we're talking about should be fast, and of
> course, they're only run for matching devices anyway. So I'd rather
> keep them as PCI_FIXUP_FINAL than add a whole new phase.
Okay, so if it is not a performance problem, then I am fine with using
PCI_FIXUP_FINAL. But I dislike calling the fixups from IOMMU code, there
must be a better solution.
Regards,
Joerg
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/b1533fd5-1fae-7256-9597-36d3d5de9d2a@molgen.mpg.de/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists