On 10 Jul 2018, at 13:43, Alejandro Lucero wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Burakov, Anatoly <
anatoly.bura...@intel.com> wrote:
On 10-Jul-18 12:14 PM, Eelco Chaudron wrote:
On 10 Jul 2018, at 12:52, Alejandro Lucero wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Eelco Chaudron
<echau...@redhat.com>
wrote:
On 10 Jul 2018, at 11:34, Alejandro Lucero wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 9:56 AM, Eelco Chaudron
<echau...@redhat.com>
wrote:
On 4 Jul 2018, at 14:53, Alejandro Lucero wrote:
A device can suffer addressing limitations. This functions
checks
memsegs have iovas within the supported range based on dma mask.
PMD should use this during initialization if supported devices
suffer addressing limitations, returning an error if this
function
returns memsegs out of range.
Another potential usage is for emulated IOMMU hardware with
addressing
limitations.
Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero
<alejandro.luc...@netronome.com>
Acked-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.bura...@intel.com>
---
lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_memory.c | 33
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_memory.h | 3 +++
lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map | 1 +
3 files changed, 37 insertions(+)
diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_memory.c
b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_memory.c
index fc6c44d..f5efebe 100644
--- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_memory.c
+++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_memory.c
@@ -109,6 +109,39 @@
}
}
+/* check memseg iovas are within the required range based on
dma
mask
*/
+int
+rte_eal_check_dma_mask(uint8_t maskbits)
+{
+
+ const struct rte_mem_config *mcfg;
+ uint64_t mask;
+ int i;
+
I think we should add some sanity check to the input maskbits,
i.e.
[64,0)
or [64, 32]? What would be a reasonable lower bound.
This is not a user's API, so any invocation will be reviewed,
but I
guess
adding a sanity check here does not harm.
Not sure about lower bound but upper should 64, although it does
not
make
sense but it is safe. Lower bound is not so problematic.
+ /* create dma mask */
+ mask = ~((1ULL << maskbits) - 1);
+
+ /* get pointer to global configuration */
+ mcfg = rte_eal_get_configuration()->mem_config;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < RTE_MAX_MEMSEG; i++) {
+ if (mcfg->memseg[i].addr == NULL)
+ break;
Looking at some other code, it looks like NULL entries might
exists.
So
should a continue; rather than a break; be used here?
I do not think so. memsegs are allocated sequentially, so first
with
addr
as NULL implies no more memsegs.
I was referring to the mem walk functions, rte_memseg_list_walk().
Maybe
some having more experience with this area can review/comment.
Pre-18.05, all memsegs are allocated continuously. Memseg lists and
memseg
list walk functions are 18.05+.
Alejandro, perhaps it would be worth it to tag your patchset with
"pre-18.05" to avoid similar confusion in the future?
Yes, that will help. I'm sending a new version shortly and I'll make
it
clear.
Thanks, I’ll review the new version if it’s ready before the end of
tomorrow CET, as I will be on PTO.
