Re: [RFC][PATCH] Fix superpage unmap on Intel IOMMU

2011-06-06 Thread Roedel, Joerg
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 03:31:30PM -0400, David Woodhouse wrote: + /* The KVM code is *fucked* in the head. It maps the range +one page at a time, using 4KiB pages unless it actually +allocated hugepages using hugetlbfs. This is acutally by design. The IOMMU driver is not

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Fix superpage unmap on Intel IOMMU

2011-06-04 Thread David Woodhouse
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Alex Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 20:31 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: Tell me it isn't so... Looks accurate to me, in fact, with hugetlbfs it seems like it's doing exactly what it should do. The non-hugetlbfs case isn't efficient, but it isn't wrong either.

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Fix superpage unmap on Intel IOMMU

2011-06-03 Thread David Woodhouse
On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 20:31 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: + size = PAGE_SIZE gfp_order; Just realised it needs an extra 9 in there somewhere, if you actually wanted to test it (Allen). I think I'd prefer to fix the KVM code instead, though. -- dwmw2 -- To unsubscribe from

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Fix superpage unmap on Intel IOMMU

2011-06-03 Thread Alex Williamson
On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 20:31 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: Tell me it isn't so... Looks accurate to me, in fact, with hugetlbfs it seems like it's doing exactly what it should do. The non-hugetlbfs case isn't efficient, but it isn't wrong either. Our only other option is to figure out what's