From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DD5CDDECE for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2007 13:37:14 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: Discussion about iopa() From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Dan Malek In-Reply-To: <712E63F6-23D6-45EB-92F0-95656FF38BC4@embeddedalley.com> References: <989B956029373F45A0B8AF02970818900D444B@zch01exm26.fsl.freescale.net> <45CB28A6.3050607@freescale.com> <712E63F6-23D6-45EB-92F0-95656FF38BC4@embeddedalley.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 13:37:01 +1100 Message-Id: <1171075021.20494.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev list , Timur Tabi List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 12:08 -0500, Dan Malek wrote: > On Feb 8, 2007, at 8:41 AM, Timur Tabi wrote: > > > Walking the page table is slower than using pointer math, so you > > want to > > avoid iopa() if you can. > > Big deal. With all of the other kernel bloat > going on you want to argue about a couple > of memory accesses? :-) We are fairly careful about not bloating fast path in general. It's more than a couple of memory accesses, especially with PTEs in highmem where it involves kmap. Ben.