On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 04:21:27PM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> > Good points, I'll post revised version when you post your v3 of this.
>
>
>
> Any plans on posting v3 of this? Thanks,
Just back from a long weekend. I'll take a stab at it soon.
On 07/04/2020 20:12, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>
>
> On 07/04/2020 03:17, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 11:25:09PM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> Do you see any serious problem with this approach? Thanks!
Do you have a link to the whole branch? The
On 07/04/2020 03:17, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 11:25:09PM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
Do you see any serious problem with this approach? Thanks!
>>>
>>> Do you have a link to the whole branch? The github UI is unfortunately
>>> unusable for that (or I'm
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 11:25:09PM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> >> Do you see any serious problem with this approach? Thanks!
> >
> > Do you have a link to the whole branch? The github UI is unfortunately
> > unusable for that (or I'm missing something).
>
> The UI shows the branch but
On 06/04/2020 21:50, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 07:38:11PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 26/03/2020 12:26, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 25/03/2020 19:37, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 03:51:36PM +1100, Alexey
On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 07:38:11PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>
>
> On 26/03/2020 12:26, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 25/03/2020 19:37, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 03:51:36PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> > This is for persistent
On 26/03/2020 12:26, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>
>
> On 25/03/2020 19:37, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 03:51:36PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> This is for persistent memory which you can DMA to/from but yet it does
> not appear in the system as a
On 25/03/2020 19:37, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 03:51:36PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
This is for persistent memory which you can DMA to/from but yet it does
not appear in the system as a normal memory and therefore requires
special handling anyway
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 03:51:36PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> >> This is for persistent memory which you can DMA to/from but yet it does
> >> not appear in the system as a normal memory and therefore requires
> >> special handling anyway (O_DIRECT or DAX, I do not know the exact
> >>
On 24/03/2020 18:54, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 02:05:54PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>> This is for persistent memory which you can DMA to/from but yet it does
>> not appear in the system as a normal memory and therefore requires
>> special handling anyway
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:00:09PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> dma_addr_t dma_direct_map_page(struct device *dev, struct page *page,
> unsigned long offset, size_t size, enum dma_data_direction dir,
> unsigned long attrs)
> {
> phys_addr_t phys =
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 02:05:54PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> This is for persistent memory which you can DMA to/from but yet it does
> not appear in the system as a normal memory and therefore requires
> special handling anyway (O_DIRECT or DAX, I do not know the exact
> mechanics). All
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 02:37:59PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> dma_alloc_direct() and dma_map_direct() do the same thing now which is
> good, did I miss anything else?
dma_alloc_direct looks at coherent_dma_mask, dma_map_direct looks
at dma_mask.
Alexey Kardashevskiy writes:
> On 24/03/2020 04:22, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 09:07:38PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>>
>>> This is what I was trying, but considering I am new to DMA subsystem, I
>>> am not sure I got all the details correct. The idea is to look at
On 24/03/2020 14:37, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>
>
> On 24/03/2020 04:20, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 07:58:01PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> 0x100.. .. 0x101..
>
> 2x4G, each is 1TB aligned. And we can map directly only the first
On 24/03/2020 04:20, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 07:58:01PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
0x100.. .. 0x101..
2x4G, each is 1TB aligned. And we can map directly only the first 4GB
(because of the maximum IOMMU table size) but not
On 24/03/2020 04:22, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 09:07:38PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>
>> This is what I was trying, but considering I am new to DMA subsystem, I
>> am not sure I got all the details correct. The idea is to look at the
>> cpu addr and see if that
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 09:07:38PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>
> This is what I was trying, but considering I am new to DMA subsystem, I
> am not sure I got all the details correct. The idea is to look at the
> cpu addr and see if that can be used in direct map fashion(is
> bus_dma_limit the
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 07:58:01PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> >> 0x100.. .. 0x101..
> >>
> >> 2x4G, each is 1TB aligned. And we can map directly only the first 4GB
> >> (because of the maximum IOMMU table size) but not the other. And 1:1 on
> >> that "pseries" is done
Christoph Hellwig writes:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 09:37:05AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> > > +/*
>> > > + * Allows IOMMU drivers to bypass dynamic translations if the
>> > > DMA mask
>> > > + * is large enough.
>> > > + */
>> > > +if
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 12:14:08PM +, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2020-03-20 2:16 pm, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> Several IOMMU drivers have a bypass mode where they can use a direct
>> mapping if the devices DMA mask is large enough. Add generic support
>> to the core dma-mapping code to do
On 2020-03-20 2:16 pm, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Several IOMMU drivers have a bypass mode where they can use a direct
mapping if the devices DMA mask is large enough. Add generic support
to the core dma-mapping code to do that to switch those drivers to
a common solution.
Hmm, this is
On 23/03/2020 19:37, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 12:28:34PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>
> [full quote deleted, please follow proper quoting rules]
>
>>> +static bool dma_alloc_direct(struct device *dev, const struct dma_map_ops
>>> *ops)
>>> +{
>>> + if
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 09:37:05AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > + /*
> > > + * Allows IOMMU drivers to bypass dynamic translations if the DMA mask
> > > + * is large enough.
> > > + */
> > > + if (dev->dma_ops_bypass) {
> > > + if (min_not_zero(dev->coherent_dma_mask,
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 12:28:34PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
[full quote deleted, please follow proper quoting rules]
> > +static bool dma_alloc_direct(struct device *dev, const struct dma_map_ops
> > *ops)
> > +{
> > + if (!ops)
> > + return true;
> > +
> > + /*
> > +
On 21/03/2020 01:16, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Several IOMMU drivers have a bypass mode where they can use a direct
> mapping if the devices DMA mask is large enough. Add generic support
> to the core dma-mapping code to do that to switch those drivers to
> a common solution.
>
>
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 03:16:39PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Several IOMMU drivers have a bypass mode where they can use a direct
> mapping if the devices DMA mask is large enough. Add generic support
> to the core dma-mapping code to do that to switch those drivers to
> a common
27 matches
Mail list logo
