[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48f683c7-9d59-4269-a828-4dabab60e631@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 07:35:04 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Ethan Zhao <etzhao1900@...il.com>, Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Vasant Hegde <vasant.hegde@....com>, Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Yi Lai <yi1.lai@...el.com>,
iommu@...ts.linux.dev, security@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] iommu/sva: Invalidate KVA range on kernel TLB
flush
On 8/11/25 18:17, Ethan Zhao wrote:
>> But this is _not_ the place to add complexity to get scalability.
> At least, please dont add bottleneck, how complex to do that ?
Very good question! If you're really interested and concerned about
this, I'd encourage you to demonstrate where the contention becomes a
problem in practice, then post a patch to fix it.
If it's simple, I'll happily ack it!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists