On Nov 10, 2015 4:44 PM, "Benjamin Herrenschmidt" <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 15:44 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > > > What about partition <-> partition virtio such as what we could do on > > > PAPR systems. That would have the weak barrier bit. > > > > > > > Is it partition <-> partition, bypassing IOMMU? > > No. > > > I think I'd settle for just something that doesn't regress > > non-experimental setups that actually work today and that allow new > > setups (x86 with fixed QEMU and maybe something more complicated on > > powerpc and/or sparc) to work in all cases. > > > > We could certainly just make powerpc and sparc continue bypassing the > > IOMMU until someone comes up with a way to fix it. I'll send out some > > patches that do that, and maybe that'll help this make progress. > > But we haven't found a solution that works. All we have come up with is > a quirk that will force bypass on virtio always and will not allow us > to operate non-bypassing devices on either of those architectures in > the future. > > I'm not too happy about this. Me neither. At least it wouldn't be a regression, but it's still crappy. I think that arm is fine, at least. I was unable to find an arm QEMU config that has any problems with my patches. --Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
