[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKgT0UeSOBbXohq1rZ3YsB4abB_-5ktkLtYbDKTah8dvaojruA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2023 11:00:55 -0700
From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>,
Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>,
Liang Chen <liangchen.linux@...il.com>,
Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 1/6] page_pool: frag API support for 32-bit
arch with 64-bit DMA
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 7:25 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 11:03:31 +0800 Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> > On 2023/8/22 23:38, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 17:21:35 +0800 Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> > >> As the CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT seems to used widely in x86/arm/mips/powerpc,
> > >> I am not sure if we can really make the above assumption.
> > >>
> > >> https://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/v6.4-rc6/K/ident/CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT
> > >
> > > Huh, it's actually used a lot less than I anticipated!
> > >
> > > None of the x86/arm/mips/powerpc systems matter IMHO - the only _real_
> >
> > Is there any particular reason that you think that the above systems does
> > not really matter?
>
> Not the systems themselves but the combination of a 32b arch with
> an address space >16TB. All those arches have 64b equivalent, seems
> logical to use the 64b version for a system with a large address space.
> If we're talking about a system which ends up running Linux.
>
> > As we have made a similar wrong assumption about those arches before, I am
> > really trying to be more cautious about it.
> >
> > I searched through the web, some seems to be claiming that "32-bits is DEAD",
> > I am not sure if there is some common agreement among the kernel community,
> > is there any previous discussion about that?
>
> My suspicion/claim is that 32 + PAGE_SHIFT should be enough bits for
> any 32b platform.
One additional thing we could consider would be to simply look at
having page_pool enforce a DMA mask for the device to address any
cases where we might not be able to fit the address. Then in the
unlikely event that somebody is running a 32b system with over 16
terabytes of RAM. With that the DMA subsystem would handle it for us
and we wouldn't have to worry so much about it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists