From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roland Dreier Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: mthca use of dma_sync_single is bogus Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:25:59 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20070709213913.GB20052@mellanox.co.il> <20070710071547.GA3814@mellanox.co.il> <20070710171142.GC11320@mellanox.co.il> <20070710183006.GE11320@mellanox.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070710183006.GE11320@mellanox.co.il> (Michael S. Tsirkin's message of "Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:30:06 +0300") List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: general-bounces@lists.openfabrics.org Errors-To: general-bounces@lists.openfabrics.org To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: Lukas Hejtmanek , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Keir Fraser , general@lists.openfabrics.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org > Hmm. This means there's no way to sync a range within > mapping created with map_sg? It doesn't seem that there is one right now at least. > > It actually doesn't look too bad to replace our use of pci_map_sg() > > with dma_map_single(), at least at first glance. I'll try to write a > > patch later. > > Well, the reason map_sg is there is presumably because on some > architectures it's worth it to try and make the region contigious in DMA space. > But I agree this seems the lesser evil at this point ... Given that we're already trying to allocate big chunks of physically contiguous memory, I think that any virtual merging we get is likely to be of very small benefit. It is kind of a shame to give this up though. - R.