[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 03 of 38] swiotlb: allow architectures tooverrideswiotlb pool allocation
>>> Jeremy Fitzhardinge <> 14.11.08 20:33 >>>
>Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Not directly related to this patch alone, but to the combined set of changes
>> to swiotlb: I don't see any handling of CONFIG_HIGHMEM here (or at least
>> a note that this a known limitation needing work). I mention this because
>> this was the largest part of the changes I had posted long ago to make
>> lib/swiotlb.c Xen-ready, and which got rejected due to their ugliness.
>Was that Andi's objection on the grounds that he didn't think that Xen
>should need swiotlb at all?

No, Tony Luck actually merged it, but someone else (I don't recall who it
was) requested it to be reverted again.

>I have to admit I didn't follow that thread very closely (or threads, as
>I seem to remember). Do you have a pointer to the pertinent bits?;a=commitdiff;h=51099005ab8e09d68a13fea8d55bc739c1040ca6

>> While perhaps less intrusive to take care of, I also didn't see an equivalent
>> of the range_straddles_page_boundary() logic, without which I can't see
>> how this would work in the common case.
>Could you be more specific? The swiotlb allocation should be machine
>contiguous and so there's no stradding required, but I think I'm missing
>your point.

The question is whether a multi-page piece of memory must be funneled
through the swiotlb in the first place. In native code, checking whether
the first/last byte satisfies the address_needs_mapping() check is
sufficient, but in Xen you also need to check whether the known to be
physically contiguous pages are also machine-contiguous.


 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-17 10:17    [W:0.064 / U:1.568 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site