[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170110144839.GB27156@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 15:48:39 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...aro.org>
Cc: Nikita Yushchenko <nikita.yoush@...entembedded.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
artemi.ivanov@...entembedded.com,
Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: NVMe vs DMA addressing limitations
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:01:05PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Another workaround me might need is to limit amount of concurrent DMA
> in the NVMe driver based on some platform quirk. The way that NVMe works,
> it can have very large amounts of data that is concurrently mapped into
> the device.
That's not really just NVMe - other storage and network controllers also
can DMA map giant amounts of memory. There are a couple aspects to it:
- dma coherent memoery - right now NVMe doesn't use too much of it,
but upcoming low-end NVMe controllers will soon start to require
fairl large amounts of it for the host memory buffer feature that
allows for DRAM-less controller designs. As an interesting quirk
that is memory only used by the PCIe devices, and never accessed
by the Linux host at all.
- size vs number of the dynamic mapping. We probably want the dma_ops
specify a maximum mapping size for a given device. As long as we
can make progress with a few mappings swiotlb / the iommu can just
fail mapping and the driver will propagate that to the block layer
that throttles I/O.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists