On Tue, 14 Sep 2021, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 05:29:07PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > > I'm not convinced the swiotlb use describe there falls under "intended > > use" - mapping a 1280x720 framebuffer in a single chunk? (As an aside, > > the bottom of this page is also confusing, as following "Then we can > > confirm the modified swiotlb size in the boot log:" there is a log > > fragment showing the same original size of 64Mb. > > It doesn't. We also do not add hacks to the kernel for whacky out > of tree modules. Also, Option 1 listed in the webpage seems to be a lot better. Any reason you can't do that? Because that option both solves the problem and increases performance.
