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
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <507C2F20.8000504@intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Oct 2012 08:43:28 -0700
From:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
To:	Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>
CC:	konrad.wilk@...cle.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
	hpa@...or.com, rob@...dley.net, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	joerg.roedel@....com, bhelgaas@...gle.com, shuahkhan@...il.com,
	fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] swiotlb: Make io_tlb_end a physical address instead
 of a virtual one

On 10/13/2012 05:52 AM, Hillf Danton wrote:
> Hi Alexander,
>
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:34 AM, Alexander Duyck
> <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com> wrote:
>> This change replaces all references to the virtual address for io_tlb_end
>> with references to the physical address io_tlb_end.  The main advantage of
>> replacing the virtual address with a physical address is that we can avoid
>> having to do multiple translations from the virtual address to the physical
>> one needed for testing an existing DMA address.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
>> ---
>>
>>  lib/swiotlb.c |   24 +++++++++++++-----------
>>  1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/swiotlb.c b/lib/swiotlb.c
>> index f114bf6..19aac9f 100644
>> --- a/lib/swiotlb.c
>> +++ b/lib/swiotlb.c
>> @@ -57,7 +57,8 @@ int swiotlb_force;
>>   * swiotlb_tbl_sync_single_*, to see if the memory was in fact allocated by this
>>   * API.
>>   */
>> -static char *io_tlb_start, *io_tlb_end;
>> +static char *io_tlb_start;
>> +phys_addr_t io_tlb_end;
> If add io_tlb_start_phy and io_tlb_end_phy, could we get same results
> with less hunks?
>
> Hillf

What do you mean by less hunks?  Are you referring to the memory space? 
If so, then the patches I am submitting do not impact how much space is
used for the bounce buffer.  The only real result of these patches is
that the total code path is significantly reduced since we don't have to
perform any virtual to physical translations in the hot-path.

Thanks,

Alex
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ