Re: [PATCH RFC 4/7] PCI/P2PDMA: Prefer providers with better HMAT performance
Leon Romanovsky <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-acpi,dev.linux.lists.acpica-devel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-pci |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20260817182750.GD66924@unreal> |
On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 10:09:42AM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On 2026-08-16 06:38, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > >> This feels backwards to me. If ACPI is kind enough to include > >> information on P2PDMA support then I feel like we should use it > >> exclusively. Not prioritize the old janky whitelists. > > > > Right now, there is no ACPI support, and I chose to prioritize > > existing systems that already have some form of support over an ACPI > > solution that does not yet exist. > But don't we know whether ACPI is advertising support now? Certainly if > ACPI indicates support we should use it above all other considerations > today. Otherwise fall back on the white lists. And that should always > work. Even on my old hardware because the ACPI on that machine doesn't > advertise support, so it should fall back on the whitelist. I see no > need to ever check the whitelist before checking ACPI. Definitely. This will be addressed in the next version. Thanks > > Logan