On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:47:45PM +0200, Adam Morrison wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Shaohua Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:21:03PM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 07:37:59PM -0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > >> > I don't know you already posted one. Roughly looked at the patches. We > >> > are using exactly the same idea. I'm happy we pursue your patches. At > >> > the first look, the per-cpu allocation in your patch doesn't check > >> > pfn_limit, that could be wrong, but should be easy to fix. I'll take a > >> > close look tomorrow. > >> > >> Sounds great. Your approaches with the per-cpu are pretty similar, so I > >> would appreciate if you two come up with a combined patch-set? > > > > I'll do this if Adam doesn't object. > > My understanding from the above is that the only issue with our > patchset was not dealing with pfn_limit. I can just fix that and > repost, sounds good?
Sure, please do it. For the patches, I'm not comformatable about the per-cpu deferred invalidation. One important benefit of IOMMU is isolation. Deferred invalidation already loose the isolation, per-cpu invalidation loose further. It would be better we can flush all per-cpu invalidation entries if one cpu hits its per-cpu limit. Also you'd better look at CPU hotplug. We don't want to lose the invalidation entries if one cpu is hot removed. The per-cpu iova implementation looks unnecessary complicated. I know you are referring the paper, but the whole point is batch allocation/free. Please cc me if you post the patches again. I don't subscribe the iommu list. Thanks, Shaohua _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
