[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9d239c5c-a4ed-f177-319f-7c467a6059ba@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 16:17:30 +0000
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Cc: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu/dma-iommu: properly respect configured address
space size
On 10/11/16 15:59, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 11:37:23AM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> TBH I've been pondering ripping the size stuff out of dma-iommu, as it
>> all stems from me originally failing to understand what dma_32bit_pfn is
>> actually for.
>
> The point of dma_32bit_pfn is to allocate dma-address below 4G by
> default. This is a performance optimization so that even devices capable
> of 64bit DMA are using SAC by default instead of DAC.
>
> Since it is the goal to share a dma-iommu implemenation between
> architectures, I would rather prefer not to rip this stuff out.
Oh, I didn't mean rip it out entirely, just get rid of the bogus
assumption that it's the "size" of the domain, especially when given a
>32-bit DMA mask, since that defeats the very optimisation I do now
understand (although it might still be OK for platform devices where
SAC/DAC doesn't apply, to avoid the rb_last() overhead every time).
>From the patch I've started, "rip it out" turns out to actually be
mostly "rewrite the comments" anyway - I'll post something soon.
Robin.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists