Re: [PATCH] intel-iommu: Manage iommu_coherency globally

[cody]

On 11/18/2011 04:03 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Hm, it seems I lied to you about this. The non-coherent mode isn't just
> a historical mistake; it's configurable by the BIOS, and we actually
> encourage people to use the non-coherent mode because it makes the
> hardware page-walk faster â so reduces the latency for IOTLB misses.
>
>    
I have a question, Intel VT-d manual says the coherency bit is "RO", how 
can it be configurable by the BIOS? Or there's another way to configure 
the IOMMU to be coherent or non-coherent? (I didn't find such info in 
the manual. I missed it?)

-cody
> In addition to that, the IOMMU associated with the integrated graphics
> is so "special" that it doesn't support coherent mode either. So it *is*
> quite feasible that we'll see a machine where some IOMMUs support
> coherent mode, and some don't.
>
> And thus we do need to address the concern that just assuming
> non-coherent mode will cause unnecessary performance issues, for the
> case where a domain *doesn't* happen to include any of the non-coherent
> IOMMUs.
>
> However... for VM domains I don't think we care. Setting up the page
> tables *isn't* a fast path there (at least not until/unless we support
> exposing an emulated IOMMU to the guest).
>
> The case we care about is *native* DMA, where this cache flush will be
> happening for example in the fast path of network TX/RX. But in *that*
> case, there is only *one* IOMMU to worry about so it's simple enough to
> do the right thing, surely?
>
>
>    
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/