[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a2e717d0-c3e2-ea98-9d8b-cee1fd37c117@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 12:27:38 +0100
From: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
<damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>, <joro@...tes.org>,
<will@...nel.org>, <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
<martin.petersen@...cle.com>, <hch@....de>,
<m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
CC: <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>, <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
<iommu@...ts.linux.dev>, <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
<linuxarm@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] dma-mapping: Add dma_opt_mapping_size()
On 28/06/2022 12:23, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> +
>> + size_t
>> + dma_opt_mapping_size(struct device *dev);
>> +
>> +Returns the maximum optimal size of a mapping for the device. Mapping
>> large
>> +buffers may take longer so device drivers are advised to limit total DMA
>> +streaming mappings length to the returned value.
>
> Nit: I'm not sure "advised" is necessarily the right thing to say in
> general - that's only really true for a caller who cares about
> throughput of churning through short-lived mappings more than anything
> else, and doesn't take a significant hit overall from splitting up
> larger requests. I do think it's good to clarify the exact context of
> "optimal" here, but I'd prefer to be objectively clear that it's for
> workloads where the up-front mapping overhead dominates.
Ok, sure, I can make that clear.
Thanks,
John
Powered by blists - more mailing lists