On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 02:52:06PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 05:13:53PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 09:05:31AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 09:34:07AM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 03:31:08PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote: > > > > > "iommu.nohugepages=1"? > > > > > > > > Generally yes, but that requires to touch all drivers to make the > > > > behavior consistent. We can start this effort on-top of this change, if > > > > desired. > > > > > > Let's at least use the same keyword that already exists though?? > > > > You mean amd_iommu=sp_off? I am not in favour of that, in the Linux > > world the term 'hugepage' is more common than 'superpage'. So I > > would avoid spreading the use of the later. We can extend that later to > > the iommu.nohugepages parameter suggested by Baolu. > > I see, okay, let me check with some people if the mlx5 part is Ok Apparently we have cases that rely on some other single page sizes (eg like 64G or something), a bitmap would probably be better. There was an ask that this apply to Intel as well. So, I think this would be better to start as a generic iommu parameter with a bitmap, and do the pagesize fixing in the core code, after domains are allocated, instead of in the AMD driver. Jason
