Catalin Marinas <[email protected]> writes:

> On Mon, Sep 14, 2026 at 12:31:32PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm) wrote:
>> +/**
>> + * swiotlb_adjusted_size() - get the prospective adjusted SWIOTLB size
>> + *
>> + * Return the size that confidential-computing guest sizing would select for
>> + * the default pool, without changing the configured SWIOTLB size. An
>> + * explicit swiotlb= size is always preserved. An explicit area count is
>> + * included in the size calculation. Automatic area sizing is initialized
>> + * later from the running kernel's possible CPU map and any resulting size
>> + * adjustment is therefore not reflected in the returned size.
>> + */
>> +unsigned long __init swiotlb_adjusted_size(void)
>> +{
>> +    unsigned long nslabs, size = swiotlb_size_or_default();
>> +
>> +    if (swiotlb_default_size_changed() ||
>> +        !cc_platform_has(CC_ATTR_GUEST_MEM_ENCRYPT))
>> +            return size;
>> +    /*
>> +     * For SEV and TDX and CCA, all DMA has to occur via
>> +     * shared/unencrypted pages. Kernel uses SWIOTLB to make this
>> +     * happen without changing device drivers. However, depending on
>> +     * the workload being run, the default 64MB of SWIOTLB may not be
>> +     * enough and SWIOTLB may run out of buffers for DMA, resulting in
>> +     * I/O errors and/or performance degradation especially with high
>> +     * I/O workloads.
>> +     *
>> +     * Adjust the default size of SWIOTLB using a percentage of guest
>> +     * memory for SWIOTLB buffers. Also, as the SWIOTLB bounce buffer
>> +     * memory is allocated from low memory, ensure that the adjusted
>> +     * size is within the limits of low available memory.
>
> Nit: if SWIOTLB_ANY is passed, do we still allocate only from low
> memory? I think this comment made sense on x86 but it's not valid for
> s390, pseries with the changes so far.
>

I'll remove that part of the comment, as the code does not check the
adjusted size against the low-memory limit.

>
> Otherwise:
>
> Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <[email protected]>

-aneesh

Reply via email to