[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH -mm] x86 calgary: fix handling of devces that aren't behind the Calgary
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 08:21:46 +0300
Muli Ben-Yehuda <> wrote:

> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 01:31:33PM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > The calgary code can give drivers addresses above 4GB which is very
> > bad for hardware that is only 32bit DMA addressable:
> >
> >
> >
> > This patch tries to fix the problem by using per-device
> > dma_mapping_ops support. This fixes the calgary code to use swiotlb
> > or nommu properly for devices which are not behind the
> > Calgary/CalIOC2.
> >
> > With this patch, the calgary code sets the global dma_ops to swiotlb
> > or nommu, and the dma_ops of devices behind the Calgary/CalIOC2 to
> > calgary_dma_ops. So the calgary code can handle devices safely that
> > aren't behind the Calgary/CalIOC2.
> This seems a little backward to me. I thought we were going to get rid
> of the global dma_ops?

Yeah, I think that we can (though I'm not sure yet if it's the
cleanest way to handle IOMMUs). I think that it would better to clean
up the x86 IOMMU startup code a bit. Currently, IOMMUs interact too
much. It might take time for me to figure out the cleanest way so I
tried to fix the Calgary problem in the easiest way.

Yeah, I'm not sure if x86 maintainers are ok with the cleanup. If they
are, I'll try.

> If not, assuming going through the global one
> would be more efficient, Calgary should be the global one and
> nommu/swiotlb should be used on devices that do not have translation
> enabled. The reason why is that the majority of devices on a Calgary
> system, assuming Calgary is in use, will have translation enabled.

get_dma_ops() checks dev->archdata.dma_ops first then uses the global
if device dma_ops is NULL. So I'm not sure about the efficiency.

But I agreed that it's a bit odd to set nommu/swiotlb to the global
ops since the majority of devices uses calgary_ops on a Calgary
system, as you said. The patch does that just because seems that it's
the easiest way to handle devices that aren't behind Calgary.

> In general the patch looks good, barring the point above. We'll give
> it a spin on some Calgary/CalIOC2 machines.


Please feel free to drop the patch if you want to fix the problem
differently. I just wanted to see how the per-device ops can handle
the problem.

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-03 08:49    [W:0.068 / U:4.404 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site