lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Question about iommu on x86 64 and ra deon driver.
> Noo.. It does, but the normal assumption of 'phys_to_virt' ==
> 'phys_to_bus' is
> not valid anymore. Think of a buffer (swiotlb) which has a pool
> of pages and when a PCI device wants a page, it hands one out. It
> also has
> other functionality such as 'mapping' of an already allocated page.
> If the
> PCI device asks the IOMMU (swiotlb) to map a page (and if you have
> 'swiotlb=force'
> the page provided has been allocated above 4GB and the device can
> only handle
> up to 32-bit),

Does the radeon driver allocate without DMA32, possibly above 4GB, ...

> then swiotlb gives out a page from its own pool. You now have
> two addresses: the one from the PCI pool (swiotlb) and the one you
> already
> allocated.

... or does it allocate under 4GB but nevertheless get a page from
the swiotlb pool?

> You are suppose to program your PCI card to read/write data to the
> page provided from the IOMMU (so the swiotlb), which means that it
> won't
> write to the page you had allocated. Hence there are a calls, such as
> 'sync_page'..
> which will copy the contents from the swiotlb page to the one you had
> allocated
> (or vice-versa). This is called 'bounce buffer'.
>
> The radeon (and nouveau) don't have the code to call the 'sync_page',
> and
> you wouldn't really want to do so - as it slows down the performance
> of the
> machine. There exists another mechanism which is to allocate the
> pages
> at the start, and not do mapping later one.

Why can the radeon not simply allocate addresses under 4GB and not
request
adresses from the iommu at all?

I assume that if you request a page from the IOMMU, you are required to
do
these sync_page calls (and that they get optimized away with a hardware
IOMMU?).

So if the radeon uses the IOMMU but does not call sync_page even if
required to
the code seems to be broken. If this is indeed the case would it not be
possible to
simply add the sync_page calls for now (and thus fix the code), if it
is not
difficult, and implement the method with more performance later?



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-31 17:37    [W:0.033 / U:1.356 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site