[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <71b7d1b5-4a5f-9053-b22b-4d946cbf6d6e@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 13:13:32 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Alex Bee <knaerzche@...il.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG 5.14] arm64/mm: dma memory mapping fails (in some cases)
On 18.09.21 07:18, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 12:22:47AM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> I did some digging and it seems that the most "generic" way to check if a
>> page is in RAM is page_is_ram(). It's not 100% bullet proof as it'll give
>> false negatives for architectures that do not register "System RAM", but
>> those are not using dma_map_resource() anyway and, apparently, never would.
>
> The downside of page_is_ram is that it looks really expensiv for
> something done at dma mapping time.
>
There would be ways to speed it up, similar to
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210902160919.25683-2-david@redhat.com
but the end result is still walking a list. Question would be, how much
that overhead matters in practice.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists