On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 05:43:46PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: >> Looking back I don't really understand why we even indirect the "classic" >> per-device dma_declare_coherent_memory use case through the DMA API. > > It certainly makes sense for devices which can exist in both shared-memory > and device-local-memory configurations, so the driver doesn't have to care > about the details (particularly on mobile SoCs where the 'local' memory > might just be a chunk of system RAM reserved by the bootloader, and it's > just a matter of different use-cases on identical hardware).
Well, the "classic" case for me is memory buffers in the device. Setting some memory aside, either in a global pool as now done for arm-nommu or even per-device as on some ARM SOCs is different indeed. As far as I can tell the few devices that use 'local' memory always use that. >> It seems like a pretty different use case to me. In the USB case we >> also have the following additional twist in that it doesn't even need >> the mapping to be coherent. > > I'm pretty sure it does (in the sense that it needs to ensure the arch code > makes the mapping non-cacheable), otherwise I can't see how the bouncing > could work properly. I think the last bit of the comment above > hcd_alloc_coherent() is a bit misleading. Well, if it isn't marked non-cacheable we'd have to do dma_cache_sync operations for it. Which would probably still be faster than non-cacheable mappings. >> So maybe for now the quick fix is to move the sleep check as suggested >> earlier in this thread, but in the long run we probably need to do some >> major rework of how dma_declare_coherent_memory and friends work. > > Maybe; I do think the specific hcd_alloc_coherent() case could still be > fixed within the scope of the existing code, but it's not quite as clean > and straightforward as I first thought, and the practical impact of > tweaking the WARN should be effectively zero despite the theoretical edge > cases it opens up. Do you want me to write it up as a proper patch? Yes. Including a proper comment on why the might_sleep is placed there. My mid-term plan was to actually remove the gfp flags argument from the dma alloc routines as is creates more confusion than it helps. I guess this means we'll at least need to introduce a DMA_ATTR_NON_BLOCK or similar flag instead then unfortunately. _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
