From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757797AbZDIAJm (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:09:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756732AbZDIAJb (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:09:31 -0400 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:52046 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756032AbZDIAJa (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:09:30 -0400 Message-ID: <49DD3C9C.7060101@goop.org> Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:09:00 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: FUJITA Tomonori CC: galak@kernel.crashing.org, hch@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, ian.campbell@citrix.com, beckyb@kernel.crashing.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] swiotlb: Allow arch override of address_needs_mapping References: <49DD270A.6060506@goop.org> <20090409080143C.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> <49DD3041.8020808@goop.org> <20090409083752I.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <20090409083752I.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 16:16:17 -0700 > Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > >> FUJITA Tomonori wrote: >> >>>> Becky's patches of last week also added __weak annotations to >>>> swiotlb_bus_to_virt, virt_to_bus and bus_to_phys; added the hwdev >>>> parameter to swiotlb_bus_to_phys; and added a weak >>>> swiotlb_arch_address_needs_mapping. I assume that was needed because >>>> powerpc needs non-trivial implementations for those functions. >>>> >>>> >>> Hmm, what she added are wrappers of virt_to_bus and bus_to_virt. We >>> can remove these and directly use virt_to_bus and bus_to_virt. >>> >>> >> In general those interfaces are deprecated. Are we un-deprecating >> them? Or do you mean adding virt<->bus to dma_ops? >> > > Hmm, these interfaces are wrong for drivers surely because they can't > handle dma mapping properly. However, they are exactly what swiotlb > needs (swiotlb doesn't need to care about dma mapping). It needs to care about the mapping from phys to bus. On x86 they're identical, but on powerpc there can be at least an offset between them. > Until 2.6.28, > swiotlb has used them. They are with IA64, X86_64 and PPC_32, I think. > Well, Becky's patches also added the hwdev argument to them, so presumably the powerpc implementation needs that (different devices/buses have differing views of physical memory, I guess). > I'm not sure what you mean. And I don't think ppc wants swiotlb_alloc. > No, its something we need for Xen. I was thinking that swiotlb could allocate its memory with dma_alloc_coherent(NULL, size, ...). That would allocate via x86_fallback_device, which would not have the right behaviour (it would set GFP_DMA, for a start), and would end up hitting the uninitialized dma_ops. So the idea doesn't really work; it would need swiotlb to define another placeholder device who's alloc_coherent operation could be overridden, and it all gets pretty ugly. As an aside, I'm also wondering why there's a distinction between swiotlb_alloc() and swiotlb_alloc_boot(). The latter allocates from bootmem, but I don't see what's wrong with allocating from slab a little bit later, once it has been initialized. The comment mentions something about allocating ISA DMA memory, but the code doesn't make any attempt to allocate the buffer below 16MB (its generally much larger than 16MB anyway). J