Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:52:16 +0200 | | From | Joerg Roedel <> | | Subject | Re: [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
|  |