From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2022 17:57:43 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/15] swiotlb: make the swiotlb_init interface more useful Message-Id: <20220601175743.GA28082@lst.de> List-Id: References: <20220404050559.132378-1-hch@lst.de> <20220404050559.132378-10-hch@lst.de> <20220601173441.GB27582@lst.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Nathan Chancellor Cc: Christoph Hellwig , iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, x86@kernel.org, Anshuman Khandual , Tom Lendacky , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Stefano Stabellini , Boris Ostrovsky , Juergen Gross , Joerg Roedel , David Woodhouse , Lu Baolu , Robin Murphy , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org, tboot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 10:46:54AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 07:34:41PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Can you send me the full dmesg and the content of > > /sys/kernel/debug/swiotlb/io_tlb_nslabs for a good and a bad boot? > > Sure thing, they are attached! If there is anything else I can provide > or test, I am more than happy to do so. Nothing interesting. But the performance numbers almost look like swiotlb=force got ignored before (even if I can't explain why). Do you get a similar performance with the new kernel without swiotlb=force as the old one with that argument by any chance?