[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1500309990.3244.2.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 09:46:30 -0700
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
bart.vanassche@...disk.com,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
arcml <linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: semantics of dma_map_single()
On Mon, 2017-07-17 at 09:06 -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> Hi Christoph,
>
> On 07/16/2017 11:42 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >
> > I would expect that it would support any contiguous range in
> > the kernel mapping (e.g. no vmalloc and friends). But it's not
> > documented anywhere, and if no in kernel users makes use of that
> > fact at the moment it might be better to document a page size
> > limitation and add asserts to enforce it.
>
> My first thought was indeed to add a BUG_ON for @size > PAGE_SIZE
> (also accounting for offset etc), but I have a feeling this will
> cause too many breakages. So perhaps it would be better to add the
> fact to Documentation that it can handle any physically contiguous
> range.
Actually, that's not historically right. dma_map_single() was
originally designed to be called on any region that was kmalloc'd
meaning it was capable of mapping physically contiguous > PAGE_SIZE
regions.
For years (decades?) we've been eliminating the specialised
dma_map_single() calls in favour of dma_map_sg, so it's possible there
may not be any large region consumers anymore, so it *may* be safe to
enforce a PAGE_SIZE limit, but not without auditing the remaining
callers.
James
Powered by blists - more mailing lists