On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 04:22:32PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this is the rebase on top of iommu/x86/amd of my last series. It takes
> Scotts comments into consideration from my v2.
>
> It contains lock splitting and GFP_KERNEL allocation of remap-table.
> Mostly cleanup.
>
Hi,
this is the rebase on top of iommu/x86/amd of my last series. It takes
Scotts comments into consideration from my v2.
It contains lock splitting and GFP_KERNEL allocation of remap-table.
Mostly cleanup.
The patches were boot tested on an AMD EPYC 7601.
Sebastian
___
On Mon, 2018-03-19 at 13:15 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2018-03-17 16:43:39 [-0500], Scott Wood wrote:
> > If that's worth the lock dropping then fine (though why does only
> > one
> > of the two allocations use GFP_KERNEL?), but it doesn't need to be
> > a
>
> That was a mistake,
On 2018-03-17 16:43:39 [-0500], Scott Wood wrote:
> If that's worth the lock dropping then fine (though why does only one
> of the two allocations use GFP_KERNEL?), but it doesn't need to be a
That was a mistake, I planned to keep both as GFP_KERNEL.
> raw lock if the non-allocating users are sepa
On Sat, 2018-03-17 at 22:10 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2018-03-17 14:49:54 [-0500], Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-03-16 at 21:18 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > The goal here is to make the memory allocation in get_irq_table()
> > > not
> > > with disabled inter
On 2018-03-17 14:49:54 [-0500], Scott Wood wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-03-16 at 21:18 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > The goal here is to make the memory allocation in get_irq_table() not
> > with disabled interrupts and having as little raw_spin_lock as
> > possible
> > while having them if
On Fri, 2018-03-16 at 21:18 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> The goal here is to make the memory allocation in get_irq_table() not
> with disabled interrupts and having as little raw_spin_lock as
> possible
> while having them if the caller is also holding one (like desc->lock
> during IRQ
The goal here is to make the memory allocation in get_irq_table() not
with disabled interrupts and having as little raw_spin_lock as possible
while having them if the caller is also holding one (like desc->lock
during IRQ-affinity changes).
I reverted one patch one patch in the iommu while rebasing
Hi Sebastian,
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 11:27:26PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> I have no idea why but suddenly my A10 box complained loudly about
> locking and memory allocations within the iommu code under RT. Looking
> at the code it has been like this for a longer time so the iommu
Hi,
I have no idea why but suddenly my A10 box complained loudly about
locking and memory allocations within the iommu code under RT. Looking
at the code it has been like this for a longer time so the iommu must
have appeared recently (well there was a bios upgrade due to other
issues so it might
10 matches
Mail list logo
