lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] remove fullflush and nofullflush in IOMMU generic option
    On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 03:48:11AM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
    > On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:01:18 +0200
    > Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@amd.com> wrote:
    >
    > > On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 02:40:35AM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
    > > > On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:30:04 +0200
    > > > Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@amd.com> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 02:09:21AM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Please keep it for AMD option for now. Please send a patch to make it
    > > > > > generic to other IOMMU people and give them a chance to discuss on
    > > > > > it.
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > Btw, you already agreed with a generic iommu= parameter for lazy IO/TLB
    > > > > flushing"
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > > True. We should merge common parameters across IOMMUs into the
    > > > > > iommu= parameter some time in the future, I think. It would also be the
    > > > > > place for the IOMMU size parameter.
    > > > >
    > > > > Hmm, now is better than the future? I think that now you can add
    > > > > something like 'disable_batching_flush' as a common parameter and
    > > > > change AMD IOMMU to use it.
    > > > >
    > > > > in http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/9/17/376
    > > > >
    > > > > And since we already have a iommu=fullflush parameter it makes sense of
    > > > > make it generic.
    > > >
    > > > I'm not against fullflush but we need to discuss it with other people
    > > > before making the change.
    > >
    > > Weird. Just 2 hours ago you wrote:
    > >
    > > |http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/9/19/106
    > > |
    > > |For me, adding these boot parameters doesn't make sense.
    >
    > See:
    >
    > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/9/19/221

    Removing nofullflush and moving fullflush to the generic code are two
    different questions. You talk about the first and I talk about the
    second here. We should make sure we talk about the same things
    when we flame each other ;)


    >
    > > Anyway, I wrote to the Intel and Calgary developers and asked them for
    > > their opinion. If they have real objections I am the last person NACKing
    > > your original patch in this thread again.
    >
    > I think that I already expressed a real objection for nofullflush
    > twice though I'm not the maintainer of any IOMMUs.

    And I agree with that. But AMD IOMMU updates are not the right place to
    remove it.

    > > The reason why I queued this patch in AMD IOMMU updates was that I
    > > didn't wanted to implement an option specificly for AMD IOMMU when there
    > > will be a generic one soon. This is double work I prefered to do it
    >
    > You were not sure that they will be generic before discussion.

    Since Intel has lazy flushing too it is generic enough. Its only the
    question if the Intel VT-d maintainer want to use it.

    Joerg

    --
    | AMD Saxony Limited Liability Company & Co. KG
    Operating | Wilschdorfer Landstr. 101, 01109 Dresden, Germany
    System | Register Court Dresden: HRA 4896
    Research | General Partner authorized to represent:
    Center | AMD Saxony LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, US)
    | General Manager of AMD Saxony LLC: Dr. Hans-R. Deppe, Thomas McCoy



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-09-19 21:55    [W:0.029 / U:30.680 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site