From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: dma_mapping_ops for i386
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:40:21 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4682AF15.5040906@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200706271726.51013.ak@suse.de>
Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 June 2007 16:15:17 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
>> Andi Kleen wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, if you can do it without ifdefs.
>>>
>>>
>> That should be OK. All the existing i386 mapping operations would just
>> have their own ops structure, right?
>>
>
> I just mention it because many people's ideas of merging files
> seem to add lots of ifdefs which is imho the totally wrong thing
> to do.
>
>
>>> And no swiotlb on i386; that is something that is completely broken
>>> in upstream Xen and needs to be fixed properly anyways.
>>>
>>>
>> Hm, OK. I'm not really familiar with the issues here. What are they?
>> Looks like Jan has made a number of Xen-ish changes to lib/swiotlb.c;
>> are more changes be needed?
>>
>
> See the recent "quiet down swiotlb warnings" thread which uncovered
> quite some corpses in Xen's current IO setup.
>
> Xen apparently bounces for multi page IOs which get merged from block
> lists because the block layer doesn't know they are not really
> continuous in machine memory.
>
> Proper fix is to tell the block layer to not merge in the first
> place instead.
>
> And probably some similar mechanism for network drivers that limits
> MTUs.
>
Well, I think there are two issues here. One is that two
pseudo-physical pages won't necessarily be contigious in bus space,
because of the pseudo-phys to machine mapping.
The second problem is that devices which can't address all machine
physical memory (ie, 32-bit PCI devices on machines with >4G memory)
will need to have bouncebuffers established for them. Device drivers
won't necessarily be able to do it because they're not really aware of
machine addresses.
> Maybe we'll still need a simple bouncing mechanism for other obscure
> devices with large IOs then, but I would very much prefer if it wasn't
> swiotlb and could be solved some other way.
>
I think 32-bit-only devices are a bigger concern, no?
J
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-06-27 18:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-06-26 19:59 dma_mapping_ops for i386 Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-06-26 22:21 ` Andi Kleen
2007-06-27 14:15 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-06-27 15:26 ` Andi Kleen
2007-06-27 18:40 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge [this message]
2007-06-27 20:28 ` Muli Ben-Yehuda
2007-06-30 18:41 ` Herbert Xu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4682AF15.5040906@goop.org \
--to=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=jbeulich@novell.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=muli@il.ibm.com \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox