On 7 October 2020 17:02:59 BST, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 07 2020 at 15:23, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> On Wed, 2020-10-07 at 16:05 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 07 2020 at 14:08, David Woodhouse wrote:
>>> > On 7 October 2020 13:59:00 BST, Thomas Gleixner
><tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > > On Wed, Oct 07 2020 at 08:48, David Woodhouse wrote:
>>> > > > To fix *that* case, we really do need the whole series giving
>us per-
>>> > > > domain restricted affinity, and to use it for those
>MSIs/IOAPICs that
>>> > > > the IRQ remapping doesn't cover.
>>> > >
>>> > > Which do not exist today.
>>> >
>>> > Sure. But at patch 10/13 into this particular patch series, it
>*does*
>>> > exist.
>>>
>>> As I told you before: Your ordering is wrong. We do not introduce
>bugs
>>> first and then fix them later ....
>>
>> I didn't introduce that bug; it's been there for years. Fixing it
>> properly requires per-irqdomain affinity limits.
>>
>> There's a cute little TODO at least in the Intel irq-remapping
>driver,
>> noting that we should probably check if there are any IOAPICs that
>> aren't in the scope of any DRHD at all. But that's all.
>
>So someone forgot to remove the cute little TODO when this was added:
>
> if (parse_ioapics_under_ir()) {
> pr_info("Not enabling interrupt remapping\n");
> goto error;
> }
And HPET, and PCI devices including those that might be hotplugged in future and not be covered by any extant IOMMU's scope?
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
