From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80ECFC433F5 for ; Wed, 18 May 2022 13:12:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF4C408A6; Wed, 18 May 2022 13:12:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KT-cUrOvqYCn; Wed, 18 May 2022 13:12:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.linuxfoundation.org (lf-lists.osuosl.org [140.211.9.56]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A83B40895; Wed, 18 May 2022 13:12:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lf-lists.osuosl.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10DC7C0039; Wed, 18 May 2022 13:12:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 646CCC002D for ; Wed, 18 May 2022 13:12:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5236F826B0 for ; Wed, 18 May 2022 13:12:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id INXKEgqfnX8G for ; Wed, 18 May 2022 13:12:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BE5C8248F for ; Wed, 18 May 2022 13:12:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 63B0568AFE; Wed, 18 May 2022 15:12:37 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 15:12:37 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Robin Murphy Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] dma-iommu: Add iommu_dma_max_mapping_size() Message-ID: <20220518131237.GA26019@lst.de> References: <1652706361-92557-1-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Cc: liyihang6@hisilicon.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, will@kernel.org, hch@lst.de X-BeenThere: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues for Linux IOMMU support List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: iommu-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Sender: "iommu" On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:40:52AM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: > Indeed, sorry but NAK for this being nonsense. As I've said at least once > before, if the unnecessary SAC address allocation attempt slows down your > workload, make it not do that in the first place. If you don't like the > existing command-line parameter then fine, there are plenty of other > options, it just needs to be done in a way that doesn't break x86 systems > with dodgy firmware, as my first attempt turned out to. What broke x86? _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62BD2C433EF for ; Wed, 18 May 2022 13:12:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237538AbiERNMx (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 May 2022 09:12:53 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:47456 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S237484AbiERNMr (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 May 2022 09:12:47 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 477BB93451 for ; Wed, 18 May 2022 06:12:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 63B0568AFE; Wed, 18 May 2022 15:12:37 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 15:12:37 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Robin Murphy Cc: John Garry , joro@8bytes.org, will@kernel.org, hch@lst.de, m.szyprowski@samsung.com, chenxiang66@hisilicon.com, thunder.leizhen@huawei.com, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, liyihang6@hisilicon.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] dma-iommu: Add iommu_dma_max_mapping_size() Message-ID: <20220518131237.GA26019@lst.de> References: <1652706361-92557-1-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:40:52AM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: > Indeed, sorry but NAK for this being nonsense. As I've said at least once > before, if the unnecessary SAC address allocation attempt slows down your > workload, make it not do that in the first place. If you don't like the > existing command-line parameter then fine, there are plenty of other > options, it just needs to be done in a way that doesn't break x86 systems > with dodgy firmware, as my first attempt turned out to. What broke x86?