[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1447788530.83864.217.camel@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:28:50 +0000
From: "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>
To: "dmaengine@...r.kernel.org" <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>,
"okaya@...eaurora.org" <okaya@...eaurora.org>
CC: "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] User space to kernel space copy optimization
On Mon, 2015-11-16 at 23:19 +0000, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 11/16/2015 5:57 PM, Jiang, Dave wrote:
> > > One of the things I'm interested in is to use a memcpy capable
> > > DMA
> > > > engine HW to optimize user space and kernel space parameter
> > > > copying.
> > Have you looked at why NET_DMA was deprecated and using DMA engine
> > to
> > do kernel->user copy could be a problem?
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/com
> > mit/
> > ?id=77873803363c
> >
>
> As far as I know, the problem was the TCP/IP stack trying to work on
> a
> buffer that was given to the DMA engine for moving. It was causing
> stale
> data problems.
>
> The goal was to let DMA engine move the data while TCP/IP stack was
> working on something else. Then, synchronize on a known point. Of
> course, when above violation happens; things break.
>
> Are you expecting a similar problem on user space to kernel space
> interaction? I think the ownership buffers are pretty much defined,
> isn't it?
No. I thought you were investigating both ways so thought you might
need to be aware.
>
>
> --
> Sinan Kaya
> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center,
> Inc.
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a
> Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
Powered by blists - more mailing lists