[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1517d2f0-08d6-a532-7810-2161b2dff421@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 07:55:39 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc: Tianyu Lan <ltykernel@...il.com>, m.szyprowski@...sung.com,
michael.h.kelley@...rosoft.com, kys@...rosoft.com,
parri.andrea@...il.com, thomas.lendacky@....com,
wei.liu@...nel.org, Tianyu Lan <Tianyu.Lan@...rosoft.com>,
linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kirill.shutemov@...el.com,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, andi.kleen@...el.com,
brijesh.singh@....com, vkuznets@...hat.com, hch@....de
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] swiotlb: Split up single swiotlb lock
On 4/28/2022 7:45 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 03:44:36PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> Rather than introduce this extra level of allocator complexity, how about
>> just dividing up the initial SWIOTLB allocation into multiple io_tlb_mem
>> instances?
> Yeah. We're almost done removing all knowledge of swiotlb from drivers,
> so the very last thing I want is an interface that allows a driver to
> allocate a per-device buffer.
At least for TDX need parallelism with a single device for performance.
So if you split up the io tlb mems for a device then you would need a
new mechanism to load balance the requests for single device over those.
I doubt it would be any simpler.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists