On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 10:08:18AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 12:46:51PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 01:37:11PM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > > > On 10.08.2026 12:20, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 02:59:42PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > > >> Marek Szyprowski <[email protected]> writes: > > > >> > > > >>> On 07.08.2026 20:20, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > >>>> On Fri, Aug 07, 2026 at 06:13:49PM +0000, Mostafa Saleh wrote: > > > >>>>> But the whole thing is best effort anyway, the kernel picks > > > >>>>> IO_TLB_DEFAULT_SIZE which does not depend on the system topology or > > > >>>>> how many devices or how much DMA they do. > > > >>>>> SWIOTLB memory is wasted if unused so we should be careful around > > > >>>>> that as it would be the other way around and users would have to > > > >>>>> decrease it manually. > > > >>>> Yeah, it is why the arch code shouldn't really be sizing it directly, > > > >>>> it should be done in common code and, yes, we are probably going to > > > >>>> have to do something alot smarter to have the common code better > > > >>>> auto-tune this for the CC case.. > > > >>> What about the $subject patch? I assume that it is still needed to > > > >>> > > > >>> restore the behavior that was altered by the "[PATCH v8 00/23] > > > >>> > > > >>> dma-mapping: Track shared DMA state through direct, pool and swiotlb > > > >>> > > > >>> paths?" patchset? > > > >>> > > > >> I would request that we pick this patch to fix the regression described > > > >> in https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/. > > > > I really don't think we need it. CCA hardware isn't exactly widespread > > > > and the KVM host side patches don't appear close to being merged. > > > > > > Does this mean that the branch for-next/coco [1] won't go to v7.3-rc1? > > Let's not make progress on guest support contingent on KVM CCA host > side patches please. I expect the CSPs will have VM instance types > available based on CCA within quarters, and Linux as a Guest should > work in those environments regardless of what KVM is doing. I don't > really expect full KVM support for years, frankly, the patchset is > massive. Even Intel and AMD don't have full KVM support yet.
To be clear: the only part I'm pushing back on is the realm-specific hack to size the SWIOTLB area in arch/arm64/. Even with that hack applied, I don't believe a one-size-fits-all value is going to work for everybody, so it was really great to see that special-case removed in: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ but now, because it regresses some test configuration, the proposal was to penalise protected VMs too (bearing in mind that the patch above hasn't yet landed upstream): https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ with the alternative being to reintroduce the original hack that we just removed! https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ I'm saying: merge the patches as they are, without reintroducing this horrible bodge in the architecture code to drive a heuristic that most people seem to agree should be handled more robustly elsewhere. > People already have CCA capable HW, are already testing this stuff and > the closer upstream can get to being workable as a guest without a > mountain of OOT patches the better. This specific part is about a single line of code, to control something which is already configurable in Kconfig and on the cmdline. It's not a mountain of out-of-tree patches. > I agree the thing is not ideal, but it was merged to ARM like this a > long time ago, this patch is just fixing a small oopsie (was it a > merge conflict?) to put it back. I don't the objection. My main objection is that I have very little confidence in people trying to fix this properly if we take the realm-specific bodge in the arch code. With all the CCA patches floating about already, why would they? Will
