On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 04:40:49PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 06:30:28PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > I am inclined to say, for 4.10 let's revert > > c7070619f3408d9a0dffbed9149e6f00479cf43b since what it fixes is not a > > regression in 4.10. > > No complaints there, as long as we can keep working to fix this for 4.11 > and onwards. You'll also need to cc stable on the revert. > > > So I think we can defer the fix to 4.11. > > I think we still want f7f6634d23830ff74335734fbdb28ea109c1f349 > > for hosts with virtio 1 support. > > > > All this will hopefully push hosts to just implement virtio 1. > > For mmio the changes are very small: several new registers, > > that's all. You want this for proper 64 bit dma mask anyway. > > As I've said, virtio 1 will have exactly the same issue unless we start > requiring firmware to advertise dma-coherent/_CCA for virtio-mmio > devices correctly. > > Will OK I read up on _CCA in ACPI spec. It says: The _CCA object returns whether or not a bus-master device supports hardware managed cache coherency. Expected values are 0 to indicate it is not supported, and 1 to indicate that it is supported. So if host is cache coherent, and guest thinks it isn't, we incur unnecessary overhead by wasting coherent memory. I get that but you said it actually breaks - why does it? -- MST _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
