Re: Intel IOMMU (and IOMMU for Virtualization) performances

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@...>
Cc: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <mgross@...>, <linux-scsi@...>
Date: Friday, June 6, 2008 - 5:28 pm

On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com> wrote:
....

Yes, I meant the former.



Agreed. It's a trade off.

...

Historically the IOMMUs needed physically contiguous memory and
resizing essentially meant quiescing all DMA, moving the IO Pdir data
to the new bigger location,  allocating a new bitmap and cloning the
state into that as well, and then resuming DMA operations. The DMA
quiesce requirement effectively meant a reboot. My understanding of
Vt-d is the ranges can be added range at a time and thus can be easily
resized. But it will mean more complex logic in the IOMMU bitmap
handling for a domain which owns multiple bitmaps and thus a slightly
higher CPU utilization cost. At least that's my guess. I'm not working
on any IOMMU code lately...

thanks,
grant
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Intel IOMMU (and IOMMU for Virtualization) performances, FUJITA Tomonori, (Wed Jun 4, 10:47 am)
Re: Intel IOMMU (and IOMMU for Virtualization) performances, FUJITA Tomonori, (Fri Jun 6, 12:44 am)
Re: Intel IOMMU (and IOMMU for Virtualization) performances, Grant Grundler, (Fri Jun 6, 5:28 pm)
Re: Intel IOMMU (and IOMMU for Virtualization) performances, FUJITA Tomonori, (Thu Jun 5, 10:49 am)
Re: Intel IOMMU (and IOMMU for Virtualization) performances, FUJITA Tomonori, (Fri Jun 6, 12:44 am)
Re: Intel IOMMU (and IOMMU for Virtualization) performances, FUJITA Tomonori, (Thu Jun 5, 10:49 am)