WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] x86 swiotlb questions

To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] x86 swiotlb questions
From: Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:39:07 +0000
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:39:18 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <45865508.76E4.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcciiFy6mwxFEI57Edui4wANk04WTA==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] x86 swiotlb questions
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.5.060620
On 18/12/06 7:44 am, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Same here. We didn't implement this. It doesn't seem to make that much
>> sense. Sync'ing with lib/swiotb.c and throwing away our special one would be
>> very nice. :-)
> 
> Trying to do that I find one extra issue: in_swiotlb_aperture() does its check
> based on pfn, while lib/swiotlb.c uses the virtual address in the respective
> checks instead. Is there some subtlety behind that (that then should be
> commented upon), or is this just due to this originally having been an
> mfn-based check?

Yes, it's because we used to do an mfn range check which was okay when the
swiotlb aperture was filled with contiguous machine memory. Since it is
composed of discontiguous slabs now, we changed to a pfn check but that
could equally well be a virtual-address check.

Do we merge okay with lib/swiotlb.c then? One concern I had was with our
preferred setup semantics -- we really want the user to be able to forcibly
enable the swiotlb via a boot parameter *but* not have to suffer using it
for every DMA operation. Last I looked the generic swiotlb didn't have that
option. That and our very Xen-specific checks for whether to auto-enable the
swiotlb led me to think that the very start-of-day setup of swiotlb would
need to be overridable by architecture.

 -- Keir


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel