| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4923E4D5.4070202@kernel.org> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:05:09 +0900 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Leon Woestenberg <leon.woestenberg@...il.com> CC: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>, jens.axboe@...cle.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com Subject: Re: pci_map_sg() does not coalesce adjacent physical memory? x86 Leon Woestenberg wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 8:58 AM, FUJITA Tomonori > <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp> wrote: >> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:58:12 +0900 >> FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp> wrote: >>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:22:31 +0100 >> - pci_map_sg/dma_map_sg are used with a scatter gather list that >> doesn't come from the block layer (e.g. some network drivers do). >> > This is the point I then want to make: we have pci_map_sg() users in > other system than the block layer, the network and v4l2 subsystems, > why cannot they benefit from coalescing? Because pci_map_sg() doesn't know the memory access limits of the controller as block layer does. > Should they copy the block layer coalescing implementation, or should > that implementation be made more generic and live outside the block > sub system? The latter sounds like a good idea to me. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists