[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230720082316.GB6932@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 10:23:16 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Petr Tesařík <petr@...arici.cz>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Petr Tesarik <petrtesarik@...weicloud.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@...m.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Petr Tesarik <petr.tesarik.ext@...wei.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
James Seo <james@...iv.tech>,
James Clark <james.clark@....com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"moderated list:XEN HYPERVISOR ARM" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
"moderated list:ARM PORT" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:MIPS" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:XEN SWIOTLB SUBSYSTEM" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com>,
Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/8] Allow dynamic allocation of software IO TLB
bounce buffers
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 10:13:20AM +0200, Petr Tesařík wrote:
> Fine with me. I removed it after all my testing showed no performance
> impact as long as the size of the initial SWIOTLB is kept at the
> default value (and sufficient for the workload), but it's OK for me if
> dynamic SWIOTLB allocations are off by default.
>
> OTOH I'd like to make it a boot-time option rather than build-time
> option. Would that be OK for you?
I'd really like the config option to not even build the code. But
a boot time option sounds very useful in addition to that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists