From: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, andrea@suse.de
Subject: Re: [patch] zero-bounce highmem I/O
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:48:09 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010816144809.A4352@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20010816135150.X4352@suse.de> <20010816.045642.116348743.davem@redhat.com> <20010816140317.Y4352@suse.de> <20010816.052727.68039859.davem@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20010816.052727.68039859.davem@redhat.com>
On Thu, Aug 16 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:03:17 +0200
>
> > That is why PCI_MAX_DMA32, or whatever you would like to name it, does
> > not make any sense. It can be a shorthand for drivers themselves, but
> > that is it and personally I'd rather they just put the bits there
> > explicitly.
>
> Drivers, right. THe block stuff used it in _one_ place -- the
> BLK_BOUNCE_4G define, to indicated the need to bounce anything above 4G.
> But no problem, I can just define that to 0xffffffff myself.
>
> How can "the block stuff" (ie. generic code) make legal use of this
Block stuff is a crappy name, the block layer :-)
> value? Which physical bits it may address, this is a device specific
> attribute and has nothing to with with 4GB and highmem and PCI
> standard specifications. :-)
It didn't make use of this value, it merely provided it for _drivers_ to
use. Driver passes in a max dma address, block layer translates that
into a page address. As for 4GB, see below.
> In fact, this is not only a device specific attribute, it also has
> things to do with elements of the platform.
>
> This is why we have things like pci_dma_supported() and friends.
> Let me give an example, for most PCI controllers on Sparc64 if your
> device can address the upper 2GB of 32-bit PCI space, one may DMA
> to any physical memory location via the IOMMU these controllers have.
>
> There may easily be HIGHMEM platforms which operate this way. So the
> result is that CONFIG_HIGHMEM does _not_ mean ">=4GB memory must be
> bounced".
>
> Really, 0xffffffff is a meaningless value. You have to test against
> device indicated capabilities for bouncing decisions.
Ok, I see where we are not seeing eye to eye. Really, I meant for the
PCI_MAX_DMA32 value to be 'Max address below 4GB' and not 'Max address
we can DMA to with 32-bit PCI'. Does that make sense? Maybe my
explanations weren't quite clear, and of course it didn't really help
that I shoved it in pci.h :-)
> You do not even know how "addressable bits" translates into "range of
> physical memory that may be DMA'd to/from by device". If an IOMMU is
> present on the platform, these two things have no relationship
> whatsoever. These two things happen to have a direct relationship
> on x86, but that is as far as it goes.
That's why I need you to sanity check the cross-platform stuff like
that :-). I see what you mean, point taken. Clearly I need to change the
blk_queue_bounce_limit stuff to check with the PCI capabilities.
> Enough babbling on my part, I'll have a look at your bounce patch
> later today. :-)
Thanks!
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-08-16 12:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-08-15 7:50 [patch] zero-bounce highmem I/O Jens Axboe
2001-08-15 9:11 ` David S. Miller
2001-08-15 9:17 ` Jens Axboe
2001-08-15 9:26 ` Jens Axboe
2001-08-15 10:22 ` David S. Miller
2001-08-15 11:13 ` Jens Axboe
2001-08-15 11:47 ` David S. Miller
2001-08-15 12:07 ` Jens Axboe
2001-08-15 12:35 ` David S. Miller
2001-08-15 13:10 ` Jens Axboe
2001-08-15 14:25 ` David S. Miller
2001-08-16 11:51 ` Jens Axboe
2001-08-16 11:56 ` David S. Miller
2001-08-16 12:03 ` Jens Axboe
2001-08-16 12:14 ` Gerd Knorr
2001-08-16 12:27 ` David S. Miller
2001-08-16 12:48 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2001-08-16 12:56 ` Jens Axboe
2001-08-16 13:08 ` David S. Miller
2001-08-16 12:34 ` David S. Miller
2001-08-16 13:35 ` Gerd Knorr
2001-08-16 14:15 ` David S. Miller
2001-08-16 12:28 ` kill alt_address (Re: [patch] zero-bounce highmem I/O) David S. Miller
2001-08-15 14:02 ` [patch] zero-bounce highmem I/O David S. Miller
2001-08-16 5:52 ` Jens Axboe
2001-08-15 19:20 ` Gérard Roudier
2001-08-16 8:12 ` David S. Miller
[not found] <no.id>
2001-08-16 14:56 ` Alan Cox
2001-08-17 10:18 ` Gerd Knorr
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20010816144809.A4352@suse.de \
--to=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=andrea@suse.de \
--cc=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).