[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240126154427.GB50608@ziepe.ca>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 11:44:27 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Timothy Pearson <tpearson@...torengineering.com>
Cc: Shivaprasad G Bhat <sbhat@...ux.ibm.com>, iommu <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, npiggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
christophe leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
aneesh kumar <aneesh.kumar@...nel.org>,
naveen n rao <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>,
jroedel <jroedel@...e.de>, aik <aik@....com>,
bgray <bgray@...ux.ibm.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
gbatra <gbatra@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, vaibhav <vaibhav@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] powerpc: iommu: Bring back table group
release_ownership() call
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 09:39:56AM -0600, Timothy Pearson wrote:
> > Just forget about the weird KVM and SPAPR stuff, leave it under the
> > kconfig of the old code and nobody will run it. Almost nobody already
> > runs it, apparently.
>
> We actually use QEMU/KVM/VFIO extensively at Raptor, so need the
> support and need it to be performant...
I wonder if you alone are the "almost" :)
The KVM entanglement was hairy and scary. I never did figure out what
was really going on there. Maybe you don't need all of it and can be
successful with a more typical iommu working model?
Suggest to tackle it after getting the first parts done.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists