[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110322.131552.104076400.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com
Cc: florian@...kler.org, awalls@...metrocast.net,
mchehab@...radead.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, js@...uxtv.org, tskd2@...oo.co.jp,
liplianin@...by, g.marco@...enet.de, aet@...terburn.org,
pb@...uxtv.org, mkrufky@...uxtv.org, nick@...k-andrew.net,
max@...eto.com, janne-dvb@...nau.be, oliver@...kum.org,
greg@...ah.com, rjw@...k.pl, joerg.roedel@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] get rid of on-stack dma buffers
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:35:04 -0500
> The API will round up so that the correct region covers the API.
> However, if you have other structures packed into the space (as very
> often happens on stack), you get cache line interference in the CPU if
> they get accessed: The act of accessing an adjacent object pulls in
> cache above your object and destroys DMA coherence. This is the
> principle reason why DMA to stack is a bad idea.
Another major real reason we can't DMA on-stack stuff is because the
stack is mapped virtually on some platforms.
And that is the original reason the restriction was put in place.
--
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