Displaying 20 results from an estimated 23 matches for "swiotlb_init".
2013 Jan 24
1
[PATCH 35/35] x86: Don't panic if can not alloc buffer for swiotlb
...ory under 4G.
According to Eric, add _nopanic version and no_iotlb_memory to fail
map single later if swiotlb is still needed.
-v2: don't pass nopanic, and use -ENOMEM return value according to Eric.
panic early instead of using swiotlb_full to panic...according to Eric/Konrad.
-v3: make swiotlb_init to be notpanic, but will affect:
arm64, ia64, powerpc, tile, unicore32, x86.
-v4: cleanup swiotlb_init by removing swiotlb_init_with_default_size.
Suggested-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm at xmission.com>
Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai at kernel.org>
Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk...
2013 Jan 24
1
[PATCH 35/35] x86: Don't panic if can not alloc buffer for swiotlb
...ory under 4G.
According to Eric, add _nopanic version and no_iotlb_memory to fail
map single later if swiotlb is still needed.
-v2: don't pass nopanic, and use -ENOMEM return value according to Eric.
panic early instead of using swiotlb_full to panic...according to Eric/Konrad.
-v3: make swiotlb_init to be notpanic, but will affect:
arm64, ia64, powerpc, tile, unicore32, x86.
-v4: cleanup swiotlb_init by removing swiotlb_init_with_default_size.
Suggested-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm at xmission.com>
Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai at kernel.org>
Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk...
2007 Apr 05
3
Swiotlb
While writing a driver for a device doing lots of DMA I''ve hit an
"swiotlb_full()" problem. This surprised me somewhat as I wouldn''t have
expected to need the use of the software TLB - it''s a 64 bit capable
device on a server with only 2 GB of RAM, and so I''d have expected to be
using a hardware TLB. Is this a peculiarity of Xen, or should I be
right
2019 May 08
2
[PATCH 04/10] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...t_virt_guest();
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sev_active);
> +
> +/* protected virtualization */
> +static void pv_init(void)
> +{
> + if (!sev_active())
can't you just use is_prot_virt_guest here?
> + return;
> +
> + /* make sure bounce buffers are shared */
> + swiotlb_init(1);
> + swiotlb_update_mem_attributes();
> + swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_FORCE;
> +}
> +
> void __init mem_init(void)
> {
> cpumask_set_cpu(0, &init_mm.context.cpu_attach_mask);
> @@ -134,6 +182,8 @@ void __init mem_init(void)
> set_max_mapnr(max_low_pfn);
>...
2019 May 08
2
[PATCH 04/10] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...t_virt_guest();
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sev_active);
> +
> +/* protected virtualization */
> +static void pv_init(void)
> +{
> + if (!sev_active())
can't you just use is_prot_virt_guest here?
> + return;
> +
> + /* make sure bounce buffers are shared */
> + swiotlb_init(1);
> + swiotlb_update_mem_attributes();
> + swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_FORCE;
> +}
> +
> void __init mem_init(void)
> {
> cpumask_set_cpu(0, &init_mm.context.cpu_attach_mask);
> @@ -134,6 +182,8 @@ void __init mem_init(void)
> set_max_mapnr(max_low_pfn);
>...
2019 Apr 09
0
[RFC PATCH 03/12] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...e it is actually
getting merged.)
> + */
> + return true;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sev_active);
> +
> +/* protected virtualization */
> +static void pv_init(void)
> +{
> + if (!sev_active())
> + return;
> +
> + /* make sure bounce buffers are shared */
> + swiotlb_init(1);
> + swiotlb_update_mem_attributes();
> + swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_FORCE;
> +}
> +
> void __init mem_init(void)
> {
> cpumask_set_cpu(0, &init_mm.context.cpu_attach_mask);
> @@ -134,6 +176,8 @@ void __init mem_init(void)
> set_max_mapnr(max_low_pfn);
>...
2019 Apr 26
0
[PATCH 04/10] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...y_decrypted);
+
+/* are we a protected virtualization guest? */
+bool sev_active(void)
+{
+ return is_prot_virt_guest();
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sev_active);
+
+/* protected virtualization */
+static void pv_init(void)
+{
+ if (!sev_active())
+ return;
+
+ /* make sure bounce buffers are shared */
+ swiotlb_init(1);
+ swiotlb_update_mem_attributes();
+ swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_FORCE;
+}
+
void __init mem_init(void)
{
cpumask_set_cpu(0, &init_mm.context.cpu_attach_mask);
@@ -134,6 +182,8 @@ void __init mem_init(void)
set_max_mapnr(max_low_pfn);
high_memory = (void *) __va(max_low_pfn * PAG...
2019 Jun 06
0
[PATCH v4 1/8] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...addr += PAGE_SIZE;
+ }
+ return 0;
+}
+
+/* are we a protected virtualization guest? */
+bool sev_active(void)
+{
+ return is_prot_virt_guest();
+}
+
+/* protected virtualization */
+static void pv_init(void)
+{
+ if (!is_prot_virt_guest())
+ return;
+
+ /* make sure bounce buffers are shared */
+ swiotlb_init(1);
+ swiotlb_update_mem_attributes();
+ swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_FORCE;
+}
+
void __init mem_init(void)
{
cpumask_set_cpu(0, &init_mm.context.cpu_attach_mask);
@@ -136,6 +181,8 @@ void __init mem_init(void)
set_max_mapnr(max_low_pfn);
high_memory = (void *) __va(max_low_pfn * PAG...
2019 Jun 12
0
[PATCH v5 1/8] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...addr += PAGE_SIZE;
+ }
+ return 0;
+}
+
+/* are we a protected virtualization guest? */
+bool sev_active(void)
+{
+ return is_prot_virt_guest();
+}
+
+/* protected virtualization */
+static void pv_init(void)
+{
+ if (!is_prot_virt_guest())
+ return;
+
+ /* make sure bounce buffers are shared */
+ swiotlb_init(1);
+ swiotlb_update_mem_attributes();
+ swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_FORCE;
+}
+
void __init mem_init(void)
{
cpumask_set_cpu(0, &init_mm.context.cpu_attach_mask);
@@ -136,6 +181,8 @@ void __init mem_init(void)
set_max_mapnr(max_low_pfn);
high_memory = (void *) __va(max_low_pfn * PAG...
2019 May 23
0
[PATCH v2 1/8] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...addr += PAGE_SIZE;
+ }
+ return 0;
+}
+
+/* are we a protected virtualization guest? */
+bool sev_active(void)
+{
+ return is_prot_virt_guest();
+}
+
+/* protected virtualization */
+static void pv_init(void)
+{
+ if (!is_prot_virt_guest())
+ return;
+
+ /* make sure bounce buffers are shared */
+ swiotlb_init(1);
+ swiotlb_update_mem_attributes();
+ swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_FORCE;
+}
+
void __init mem_init(void)
{
cpumask_set_cpu(0, &init_mm.context.cpu_attach_mask);
@@ -136,6 +181,8 @@ void __init mem_init(void)
set_max_mapnr(max_low_pfn);
high_memory = (void *) __va(max_low_pfn * PAG...
2019 May 29
0
[PATCH v3 1/8] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...addr += PAGE_SIZE;
+ }
+ return 0;
+}
+
+/* are we a protected virtualization guest? */
+bool sev_active(void)
+{
+ return is_prot_virt_guest();
+}
+
+/* protected virtualization */
+static void pv_init(void)
+{
+ if (!is_prot_virt_guest())
+ return;
+
+ /* make sure bounce buffers are shared */
+ swiotlb_init(1);
+ swiotlb_update_mem_attributes();
+ swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_FORCE;
+}
+
void __init mem_init(void)
{
cpumask_set_cpu(0, &init_mm.context.cpu_attach_mask);
@@ -136,6 +181,8 @@ void __init mem_init(void)
set_max_mapnr(max_low_pfn);
high_memory = (void *) __va(max_low_pfn * PAG...
2019 Apr 09
0
[RFC PATCH 03/12] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...BOL_GPL(sev_active);
> > > +
> > > +/* protected virtualization */
> > > +static void pv_init(void)
> > > +{
> > > + if (!sev_active())
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + /* make sure bounce buffers are shared */
> > > + swiotlb_init(1);
> > > + swiotlb_update_mem_attributes();
> > > + swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_FORCE;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > void __init mem_init(void)
> > > {
> > > cpumask_set_cpu(0, &init_mm.context.cpu_attach_mask);
> > > @@ -134,6 +...
2019 May 09
0
[PATCH 04/10] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...e?
>
Sure! I guess it would be less confusing. It is something I did not
remember to change when the interface for this provided by uv.h went
from sketchy to nice.
Thanks again!
Regards,
Halil
> > + return;
> > +
> > + /* make sure bounce buffers are shared */
> > + swiotlb_init(1);
> > + swiotlb_update_mem_attributes();
> > + swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_FORCE;
> > +}
> > +
> > void __init mem_init(void)
> > {
> > cpumask_set_cpu(0, &init_mm.context.cpu_attach_mask);
> > @@ -134,6 +182,8 @@ void __init mem_init(void)
>...
2019 May 09
0
[PATCH 04/10] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...id)
> +{
> +??? return is_prot_virt_guest();
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sev_active);
> +
> +/* protected virtualization */
> +static void pv_init(void)
> +{
> +??? if (!sev_active())
> +??????? return;
> +
> +??? /* make sure bounce buffers are shared */
> +??? swiotlb_init(1);
> +??? swiotlb_update_mem_attributes();
> +??? swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_FORCE;
> +}
> +
> ?void __init mem_init(void)
> ?{
> ???? cpumask_set_cpu(0, &init_mm.context.cpu_attach_mask);
> @@ -134,6 +182,8 @@ void __init mem_init(void)
> ???? set_max_mapnr(max_low...
2019 Apr 26
33
[PATCH 00/10] s390: virtio: support protected virtualization
Enhanced virtualization protection technology may require the use of
bounce buffers for I/O. While support for this was built into the virtio
core, virtio-ccw wasn't changed accordingly.
Some background on technology (not part of this series) and the
terminology used.
* Protected Virtualization (PV):
Protected Virtualization guarantees, that non-shared memory of a guest
that operates in PV
2019 Apr 26
33
[PATCH 00/10] s390: virtio: support protected virtualization
Enhanced virtualization protection technology may require the use of
bounce buffers for I/O. While support for this was built into the virtio
core, virtio-ccw wasn't changed accordingly.
Some background on technology (not part of this series) and the
terminology used.
* Protected Virtualization (PV):
Protected Virtualization guarantees, that non-shared memory of a guest
that operates in PV
2008 Nov 13
69
[PATCH 00 of 38] xen: add more Xen dom0 support
Hi Ingo,
Here''s the chunk of patches to add Xen Dom0 support (it''s probably
worth creating a new xen/dom0 topic branch for it).
A dom0 Xen domain is basically the same as a normal domU domain, but
it has extra privileges to directly access hardware. There are two
issues to deal with:
- translating to and from the domain''s pseudo-physical addresses and
real machine
2019 Jun 12
21
[PATCH v5 0/8] s390: virtio: support protected virtualization
Enhanced virtualization protection technology may require the use of
bounce buffers for I/O. While support for this was built into the virtio
core, virtio-ccw wasn't changed accordingly.
Some background on technology (not part of this series) and the
terminology used.
* Protected Virtualization (PV):
Protected Virtualization guarantees, that non-shared memory of a guest
that operates in PV
2019 Jun 12
21
[PATCH v5 0/8] s390: virtio: support protected virtualization
Enhanced virtualization protection technology may require the use of
bounce buffers for I/O. While support for this was built into the virtio
core, virtio-ccw wasn't changed accordingly.
Some background on technology (not part of this series) and the
terminology used.
* Protected Virtualization (PV):
Protected Virtualization guarantees, that non-shared memory of a guest
that operates in PV
2019 Jun 06
15
[PATCH v4 0/8] s390: virtio: support protected virtualization
Enhanced virtualization protection technology may require the use of
bounce buffers for I/O. While support for this was built into the virtio
core, virtio-ccw wasn't changed accordingly.
Some background on technology (not part of this series) and the
terminology used.
* Protected Virtualization (PV):
Protected Virtualization guarantees, that non-shared memory of a guest
that operates in PV