From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: generic DMA bypass flag
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 08:41:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191114074105.GC26546@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d27b7b29-df78-4904-8002-b697da5cb013@arm.com>
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 02:45:15PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> In all honesty, this seems silly. If we can set a per-device flag to say
> "oh, bypass these ops and use some other ops instead", then we can just as
> easily simply give the device the appropriate ops in the first place.
> Because, y'know, the name of the game is "per-device ops".
Except that we can't do it _that_ easily. The problem is that for both
the powerpc and intel case the selection is dynamic. If a device is in
the identify domain with intel-iommu (or the equivalent on powerpc which
doesn't use the normal iommu framework), we still want to use the iommu
to be able to map memory for devices with a too small dma mask using
the iommu instead of using swiotlb bouncing. So to "just" use the
per-device dma ops we'd need:
a) a hook in dma_direct_supported to pick another set of ops for
small dma masks
b) a hook in the IOMMU ops to propagate to the direct ops for full
64-bit masks
I looked into that for powerpc a while ago and it wasn't pretty at all.
Compared to that just checking another flag for the DMA direct calls
is relatively clean and trivial as seens in the diffstat for this series
alone.
> I don't see a great benefit to pulling legacy cruft out into common code
> instead of just working to get rid of it in-place, when said cruft pulls in
> the opposite direction to where we're taking the common code (i.e. it's
> inherently based on the premise of global ops).
I'm not sure what legacy cruft it pull in. I think it actually fits very
much into a mental model of "direct mapping is the default, to be overriden
if needed" which is pretty close to what we have at the moment. Just
with a slightly more complicated processing of the override.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-14 7:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-13 13:37 generic DMA bypass flag Christoph Hellwig
2019-11-13 13:37 ` [PATCH 1/2] dma-mapping: add a dma_ops_bypass flag to struct device Christoph Hellwig
2019-11-13 13:37 ` [PATCH 2/2] powerpc: use the generic dma_ops_bypass mode Christoph Hellwig
2019-11-13 14:45 ` generic DMA bypass flag Robin Murphy
2019-11-14 7:41 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2019-11-15 18:12 ` Robin Murphy
2019-11-16 6:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-11-19 17:41 ` Robin Murphy
2019-11-20 11:16 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-11-21 7:34 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-11-21 16:44 ` Robin Murphy
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=20191114074105.GC26546@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=aik@ozlabs.ru \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
/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).