[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] iommu/quirk: disable shared EPT for Sandybridge and earlier processors.
On 25/11/15 10:49, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 25.11.15 at 11:28, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 24/11/15 17:41, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 24.11.15 at 18:17, <Anshul Makkar anshul.makkar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/quirks.c >>>> +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/quirks.c >>>> @@ -320,6 +320,20 @@ void __init platform_quirks_init(void) >>>> /* Tylersburg interrupt remap quirk */ >>>> if ( iommu_intremap ) >>>> tylersburg_intremap_quirk(); >>>> + >>>> + /* >>>> + * Disable shared EPT ("sharept") on Sandybridge and older processors >>>> + * by default. >>>> + * SandyBridge has no huge page support for IOTLB which leads to >>>> fallback >>>> + * on 4k pages and leads to performance degradation. >>>> + * >>>> + * Shared EPT ("sharept") will be disabled only if user has not >>>> + * provided explicit choice on the command line thus >>>> iommu_hap_pt_share is >>>> + * at its initialized value of -1. >>>> + */ >>>> + if ( (boot_cpu_data.x86 == 0x06 && (boot_cpu_data.x86_model <= 0x2F || >>>> + boot_cpu_data.x86_model == 0x36)) && (iommu_hap_pt_share == -1) >>>> ) >>>> + iommu_hap_pt_share = 0; >>> If we really want to do this, then I think we should key this on >>> EPT but not VT-d having 2M support, instead of on CPU models. >> This check is already performed by vtd_ept_page_compatible() > Yeah, I realized there would be such a check on the way home. > >> The problem is that SandyBridge IOMMUs advertise 2M support and do >> function with it, but cannot cache 2MB translations in the IOTLBs. >> >> As a result, attempting to use 2M translations causes substantially >> worse performance than 4K translations. > So commit message and comment should make this more explicit, > to avoid the impression "IOTLB" isn't just the relatively common > mis-naming of "IOMMU". > > Plus I guess the sharing won't need suppressing if !opt_hap_2mb? > > Further the model based check is relatively broad, and includes > Atoms (0x36 actually is one), which can't be considered "Sandybridge > or older" imo. > > And finally I'm not fully convinced using CPU model info to deduce > chipset behavior is entirely correct (albeit perhaps in practice it'll > be fine except maybe when running Xen itself virtualized). What else would you suggest? I can't think of any better identifying information. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |