Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 31 Jan 2023 09:16:11 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] swiotlb: Add a new cc-swiotlb implementation for Confidential VMs | From | Andi Kleen <> |
| |
>No, this cannot guarantee we always have sufficient TLB caches, so we can also have a "No memory for cc-swiotlb buffer" warning.
It's not just a warning, it will be IO errors, right?
> > But I want to emphasize that in this case, the current implementation > is no worse than the legacy implementation. Moreover, dynamic TLB > allocation is more suitable for situations where more disks/network > devices will be hotplugged, in which case you cannot pre-set a > reasonable value.
That's a reasonable stand point, but have to emphasize that is "probabilistic" in all the descriptions and comments.
I assume you did some stress testing (E.g. all cores submitting at full bandwidth) to validate that it works for you?
-Andi
| |