From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <3chas3@gmail.com> Received: from mail-it0-f41.google.com (mail-it0-f41.google.com [209.85.214.41]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08D087288 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 04:29:01 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-it0-f41.google.com with SMTP id m11so433105iti.1 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:29:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qoE80aLJrhTf7m+tU7ajiAalO602NhicByerAKySs4o=; b=kiCpmszy06vVqF2J5tupjJr995kwHca1bm8PXMnhQ+c5NZK/O8yuQlm8NnZap2+Btj /IM1nZrgH7NNwGHsYE6VSgZuX3DdvDCVQzGFGfYbN5jcoHfU68O7uZwiskT5ObG8ptih UL2bEtBiXdJqd7mq0BQoHMOjmd24LrZSOA2rM1euVluoFlrB413RLEdroH6GAdNdCbgo bHpvU7GH9i9t7PWXfRaeAaTPBb8O+xT9KqtNCNH1e85VrGFskhYjkdKz+bmbX31UkCPM SDzF9LVb4mznFh5Ut00tsMaGj3TSTpkJpXqmsbvu4/8QNEnCb8/VGBXtu3GwlMc6T2Yj 7B8Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qoE80aLJrhTf7m+tU7ajiAalO602NhicByerAKySs4o=; b=qJoBKZm6Lev8yvSpxA264nPd6+MTZcKKevHo4rSjqxZA4QZxM/RgaFf89drxQSuTFA YtIM2TGvxZs2qr4GIxFu6ls7qJnRaukgXoK7Kin0MzDbJbI1/DJOEZRMJEdaTnPerweZ kdQvMSEzXaNABTY/HLRpDSeJlPVWIvF441ed5pYFBXozvlBfcUjzSGqc+SX7tjI0gLxT AgGIxS02EolGVZJM3DtIOQYM+76xXnFT4PGC3N0HKDmeqwtjM30D5zRKFl29RgwTxSq3 ZPBlQpVeMa310IFpaNhfIs3BmLmOAHtc42KxCyfvsL09Okimyix04+DbBwOIY32HcAVz sYXQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdEWljk69Bco8Nph2u5FphUuLeXyWrNAPiMelQMgHsoR4mK6qLz arnWppOnIF3GZdakwZGWQlxy4i7HLmAP+JhKkTo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBou8Ptxy69I5KbjR50IToXwDos1HDkwiMH+LqBqFcTZ9sF3pF9YTBxX5DpWTdyQHVAwhkjiDcdxPWVUtOgS74P4= X-Received: by 10.36.57.5 with SMTP id l5mr3105373ita.97.1515727740402; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:29:00 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.69.9 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:28:59 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1773541.G656isd0hF@xps> References: <20171130025739.4349-1-3chas3@gmail.com> <2600590.OO5gESNU7Y@xps> <1773541.G656isd0hF@xps> From: Chas Williams <3chas3@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 22:28:59 -0500 Message-ID: To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Chas Williams , dev@dpdk.org, anatoly.burakov@intel.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: add option to force IOVA as PA mode X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 03:29:01 -0000 Thanks, and yes I already saw that. That seems like a much better solution. I will give it a spin in my box with this problem. On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 7:12 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 03/12/2017 01:23, Chas Williams: > > The particular machine in my case is a Dell Optiplex 790 which is fairly > > similar to another system that has basically the same problem. The IOMMU > > advertises that is can only handle 39 bits of addressing. The DMAR > address > > tables have a width of 36 bits, so all is well when using IOVA physical > > addresses. With IOVA virtual addresses, they sometimes go beyond the 39 > > bit boundary. I was under the impression that IOMMU widths are more > > typically 48 bits, but I appear to have some low end systems with a > simpler > > IOMMU. > > > > I could make it a runtime option. > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:17 AM, Thomas Monjalon > > wrote: > > > > > 30/11/2017 03:57, Chas Williams: > > > > From: Chas Williams > > > > > > > > The IOMMU in some machines report that they can only support > > > > limited widths. IOVA virtual addresses may exceed this width > > > > making the use of IOVA virtual addresses difficult. The option > > > > CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_USE_PHYS_IOVA can used to force IOVA physical > > > > address usage. > > > > > > Which machines are you talking about? > > > A run-time option may be a better solution. > > Please check the patch from Maxime: > https://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/33192/ > > >