On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 11:30:16AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 17.11.2023 10:47, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/io.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/io.c
> > @@ -364,9 +364,20 @@ static const struct hvm_mmcfg *vpci_mmcfg_find(const
> > struct domain *d,
> > return NULL;
> >
On 17.11.2023 10:47, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/io.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/io.c
> @@ -364,9 +364,20 @@ static const struct hvm_mmcfg *vpci_mmcfg_find(const
> struct domain *d,
> return NULL;
> }
>
> -bool vpci_is_mmcfg_address(const struct domain *d, paddr_t addr)
>
On 17/11/2023 9:47 am, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> The current loop that iterates from 0 to the maximum RAM address in order to
> setup the IOMMU mappings is highly inefficient, and it will get worse as the
> amount of RAM increases. It's also not accounting for any reserved regions
> past the last R
On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 10:47:49AM +0100, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> The current loop that iterates from 0 to the maximum RAM address in order to
> setup the IOMMU mappings is highly inefficient, and it will get worse as the
> amount of RAM increases. It's also not accounting for any reserved region
The current loop that iterates from 0 to the maximum RAM address in order to
setup the IOMMU mappings is highly inefficient, and it will get worse as the
amount of RAM increases. It's also not accounting for any reserved regions
past the last RAM address.
Instead of iterating over memory addresse
