Re: [GIT PULL] AMD IOMMU updates for 2.6.28-rc5

[FUJITA Tomonori]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:57:50 +0200
Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > device isolation is not free; e.g. use more memory rather than
> > sharing a protection domain. I guess that more people prefer sharing
> > a protection domain by default.
> 
> I doubt it, why use an isolation-capable IOMMU at all if not for the
> increased reliability? The majority of modern devices---those that you
> are likely to find on machines with an IOMMU---don't have DMA
> limitations.

I guess that there are still some modern SATA HBAs that are not
capable of 64bit DMA. You might be right though.


> > It had been the default option for AMD IOMMU until you hit the
> > bugs. IIRC, VT-d also shares a protection domain by default. It
> > would be nice to avoid surprising users if the two virtualization
> > IOMMUs works in the similar way.
> 
> Calgary has a per-bus protection domain, both on x86 and PPC.

I see. Then it might be better to change VT-d to use a separate
protection domain by default.
--
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/