Hi Robin,
>> I use Xen PV display. In my case, PV display backend(Dom0) allocates
>> contiguous buffer via DMA-API to
>> to implement zero-copy between Dom0 and DomU.
>>
> Well, something's gone badly wrong there - if you have to shadow the
> entire thing in a bounce buffer to import it then it's
Hi Jan,
>>> In order to be sure to catch all uses like this one (including ones
>>> which make it upstream in parallel to yours), I think you will want
>>> to rename the original IO_TLB_SEGSIZE to e.g. IO_TLB_DEFAULT_SEGSIZE.
>>
>> I don't understand your point. Can you clarify this?
>
> There'
On 17.09.2021 11:36, Roman Skakun wrote:
> I use Xen PV display. In my case, PV display backend(Dom0) allocates
> contiguous buffer via DMA-API to
> to implement zero-copy between Dom0 and DomU.
Why does the buffer need to be allocated by Dom0? If it was allocated
by DomU, it could use grants to g
On 2021-09-17 10:36, Roman Skakun wrote:
Hi, Christoph
I use Xen PV display. In my case, PV display backend(Dom0) allocates
contiguous buffer via DMA-API to
to implement zero-copy between Dom0 and DomU.
Well, something's gone badly wrong there - if you have to shadow the
entire thing in a bou
Hi, Christoph
I use Xen PV display. In my case, PV display backend(Dom0) allocates
contiguous buffer via DMA-API to
to implement zero-copy between Dom0 and DomU.
When I start Weston under DomU, I got the next log in Dom0:
```
[ 112.554471] CPU: 0 PID: 367 Comm: weston Tainted: G O
5.10.0-yocto-st
Hi Stefano,
> Also, Option 1 listed in the webpage seems to be a lot better. Any
> reason you can't do that? Because that option both solves the problem
> and increases performance.
Yes, Option 1 is probably more efficient.
But I use another platform under Xen without DMA adjustment functionality
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 03:49:52PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> But the question remains: Why does the framebuffer need to be mapped
> in a single giant chunk?
More importantly: if you use dynamic dma mappings for your framebuffer
you're doing something wrong.
__
On 15.09.2021 15:37, Roman Skakun wrote:
>>> From: Roman Skakun
>>>
>>> It is possible when default IO TLB size is not
>>> enough to fit a long buffers as described here [1].
>>>
>>> This patch makes a way to set this parameter
>>> using cmdline instead of recompiling a kernel.
>>>
>>> [1] https:/
Hi Jan,
Thanks for the answer.
>> From: Roman Skakun
>>
>> It is possible when default IO TLB size is not
>> enough to fit a long buffers as described here [1].
>>
>> This patch makes a way to set this parameter
>> using cmdline instead of recompiling a kernel.
>>
>> [1] https://www.xilinx.com/s
On Tue, 14 Sep 2021, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 05:29:07PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > I'm not convinced the swiotlb use describe there falls under "intended
> > use" - mapping a 1280x720 framebuffer in a single chunk? (As an aside,
> > the bottom of this page is also conf
On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 05:29:07PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> I'm not convinced the swiotlb use describe there falls under "intended
> use" - mapping a 1280x720 framebuffer in a single chunk? (As an aside,
> the bottom of this page is also confusing, as following "Then we can
> confirm the modifie
On 14.09.2021 17:10, Roman Skakun wrote:
> From: Roman Skakun
>
> It is possible when default IO TLB size is not
> enough to fit a long buffers as described here [1].
>
> This patch makes a way to set this parameter
> using cmdline instead of recompiling a kernel.
>
> [1] https://www.xilinx.com
From: Roman Skakun
It is possible when default IO TLB size is not
enough to fit a long buffers as described here [1].
This patch makes a way to set this parameter
using cmdline instead of recompiling a kernel.
[1] https://www.xilinx.com/support/answers/72694.html
Signed-off-by: Roman Skakun
-
13 matches
Mail list logo
