Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] x86/mm/p2m: don't needlessly limit MMIO mapping order to 4k

2018-10-25 Thread Paul Durrant
> -Original Message- > From: Xen-devel [mailto:xen-devel-boun...@lists.xenproject.org] On Behalf > Of Jan Beulich > Sent: 25 October 2018 15:28 > To: Paul Durrant > Cc: Andrew Cooper ; Wei Liu > ; xen-devel > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] x86/mm/p2m: don't

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] x86/mm/p2m: don't needlessly limit MMIO mapping order to 4k

2018-10-25 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 25.10.18 at 16:36, wrote: > On 25/10/18 15:28, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 17.10.18 at 16:24, wrote: >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c >>> @@ -2081,14 +2081,11 @@ static unsigned int mmio_order(const struct domain > *d, >>>

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] x86/mm/p2m: don't needlessly limit MMIO mapping order to 4k

2018-10-25 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 25/10/18 15:28, Jan Beulich wrote: On 17.10.18 at 16:24, wrote: >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c >> @@ -2081,14 +2081,11 @@ static unsigned int mmio_order(const struct domain >> *d, >> unsigned long start_fn, unsigned long nr)

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] x86/mm/p2m: don't needlessly limit MMIO mapping order to 4k

2018-10-25 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 17.10.18 at 16:24, wrote: > --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c > @@ -2081,14 +2081,11 @@ static unsigned int mmio_order(const struct domain *d, > unsigned long start_fn, unsigned long nr) > { > /* > - * Note that the

[Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] x86/mm/p2m: don't needlessly limit MMIO mapping order to 4k

2018-10-17 Thread Paul Durrant
The P2M common code currently restricts the MMIO mapping order of any domain with IOMMU mappings, but that is not using shared tables, to 4k. This has been shown to have a huge performance cost when passing through a PCI device with a very large BAR (e.g. NVIDIA P40), increasing the guest boot