[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100228033706G.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 03:38:19 +0900
From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
To: hancockrwd@...il.com
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, bzolnier@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fix problems with NETIF_F_HIGHDMA in networking
drivers
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:15:19 -0600
Robert Hancock <hancockrwd@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 6:05 AM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> > From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
> > Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:59:31 +0100
> >
> >> Having IOMMU (even if it is only a software one, i.e. this would
> >> mean swiotlb for x86-32/highmem) always in place would simplify
> >> things greatly..
> >
> > I agree, things would be a lot simpler.
>
> Yeah, the situation kind of sucks on the platforms that don't have any
> IOMMU support, since it means that the DMA API can't handle anything
> over 4GB properly and you need all these hacks in the block layer,
> networking layer, etc. It would be nice if some kind of IOMMU support
> could be relied upon always.
When I proposed such approach (always use swiotlb) before, IIRC,
the objections were:
- better to make allocation respect dma_mask. (I don't think that this
approach is possible since we don't know which device handles data
later when we allocate memory).
- swiotlb is not good for small systems since it allocates too much
memory (we can fix this though).
There might be more.
--
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