From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joerg Roedel Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/4]IOMMU: avoid lock contention in iova allocation Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:21:03 +0100 Message-ID: <20160120122103.GE18805@8bytes.org> References: <20160110225610.GA16778@cs.technion.ac.il> <20160111033749.GA1811285@devbig084.prn1.facebook.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160111033749.GA1811285-tb7CFzD8y5b7E6g3fPdp/g2O0Ztt9esIQQ4Iyu8u01E@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Shaohua Li Cc: iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, Adam Morrison , Kernel-team-b10kYP2dOMg@public.gmane.org List-Id: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 07:37:59PM -0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > I don't know you already posted one. Roughly looked at the patches. We > are using exactly the same idea. I'm happy we pursue your patches. At > the first look, the per-cpu allocation in your patch doesn't check > pfn_limit, that could be wrong, but should be easy to fix. I'll take a > close look tomorrow. Sounds great. Your approaches with the per-cpu are pretty similar, so I would appreciate if you two come up with a combined patch-set? Joerg