From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E4C91FC8 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2023 05:12:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id B451667373; Thu, 29 Jun 2023 07:12:38 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2023 07:12:38 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Petr =?utf-8?B?VGVzYcWZw61r?= Cc: Petr Tesarik , Christoph Hellwig , Marek Szyprowski , Robin Murphy , "open list:DMA MAPPING HELPERS" , open list , Roberto Sassu , Kefeng Wang Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] swiotlb: Fix a couple of bugs in sizing areas Message-ID: <20230629051238.GB16654@lst.de> References: <20230626160725.5164ca74@meshulam.tesarici.cz> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: iommu@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20230626160725.5164ca74@meshulam.tesarici.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 04:07:25PM +0200, Petr Tesařík wrote: > As an aside (and not directly related to the bugfixes themselves), I > wonder why the area size cannot be always equal to IO_TLB_SEGSIZE. Of > course, we would (usually) end up with more areas, but that should be > a good thing, shouldn't it? The area structure is quite small, so it > cannot be because of memory consumption concerns. The overhead of > taking an uncontended spinlock should also be negligible. What would be the benefit of this?