On 2021-01-21 21:30, isa...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On 2021-01-12 08:00, Robin Murphy wrote:
On 2021-01-11 14:54, Isaac J. Manjarres wrote:
The iommu_map_sg() code currently iterates through the given
scatter-gather list, and in the worst case, invokes iommu_map()
for each element in the
On 2021-01-12 08:00, Robin Murphy wrote:
On 2021-01-11 14:54, Isaac J. Manjarres wrote:
The iommu_map_sg() code currently iterates through the given
scatter-gather list, and in the worst case, invokes iommu_map()
for each element in the scatter-gather list, which calls into
the IOMMU driver
On 2021-01-12 16:33, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 04:00:59PM +, Robin Murphy wrote:
Out of curiosity, how much of the difference is attributable to actual
indirect call overhead vs. the additional massive reduction in visits to
arm_smmu_rpm_{get,put} that you fail to
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 04:00:59PM +, Robin Murphy wrote:
> Out of curiosity, how much of the difference is attributable to actual
> indirect call overhead vs. the additional massive reduction in visits to
> arm_smmu_rpm_{get,put} that you fail to mention? There are ways to optimise
> indirect
On 2021-01-11 14:54, Isaac J. Manjarres wrote:
The iommu_map_sg() code currently iterates through the given
scatter-gather list, and in the worst case, invokes iommu_map()
for each element in the scatter-gather list, which calls into
the IOMMU driver through an indirect call. For an IOMMU driver
The iommu_map_sg() code currently iterates through the given
scatter-gather list, and in the worst case, invokes iommu_map()
for each element in the scatter-gather list, which calls into
the IOMMU driver through an indirect call. For an IOMMU driver
that uses a format supported by the io-pgtable
