[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1004091114500.1852-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 11:15:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
cc: Daniel Mack <daniel@...aq.de>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Pedro Ribeiro <pedrib@...il.com>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: USB transfer_buffer allocations on 64bit systems
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Freitag, 9. April 2010 16:41:48 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > > It'll work on x86. On incoherent architectures this violates the cacheline
> > > rules for DMA-mapping if you have to bounce.
> >
> > Not true. Consider: The driver allocates a 16-byte buffer (xbuf)
> > divided up into four sets of four bytes, and sets
> >
> > urb[i].transfer_buffer_dma = xbuf_dma + 4*i;
> >
> > Then usb_submit_urb(urb[i]) will copy the appropriate four bytes to a
> > bounce buffer and map the bounce buffer. Accesses to the other parts
> > of xbuf won't violate the cacheline rules, because xbuf isn't mapped
> > for DMA -- only the bounce buffer is. When urb[i] completes, the
> > bounce buffer contents will be copied back to the original four bytes
> > in xbuf. Again, there is no violation of cacheline rules.
>
> I think you are assuming that either every or no part of the buffer is mapped
> for DMA in place. I don't think you can assume that.
Yes I can, because the code that makes this decision is part of
usbcore and it is under my control.
Alan Stern
--
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