+ Tvrtko to take a look Quoting Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk (2021-05-20 18:12:58) > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 05:25:25PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > swiotlb_max_segment is a rather strange "API" export by swiotlb.c, > > and i915 is the only (remaining) user. > > > > swiotlb_max_segment returns 0 if swiotlb is not in use, 1 if > > SWIOTLB_FORCE is set or swiotlb-zen is set, and the swiotlb segment > > size when swiotlb is otherwise enabled. > > > > i915 then uses it to: > > > > a) decided on the max order in i915_gem_object_get_pages_internal > > b) decide on a max segment size in i915_sg_segment_size > > > > for a) it really seems i915 should switch to dma_alloc_noncoherent > > or dma_alloc_noncontigous ASAP instead of using alloc_page and > > streaming DMA mappings. Any chance I could trick one of the i915 > > maintaines into doing just that given that the callchain is not > > exactly trivial? > > > > For b) I'm not sure swiotlb and i915 really agree on the meaning > > of the value. swiotlb_set_max_segment basically returns the entire > > size of the swiotlb buffer, while i915 seems to use it to limit > > the size each scatterlist entry. It seems like dma_max_mapping_size > > might be the best value to use here. > > Yes. The background behind that was SWIOTLB would fail because well, the > size of the sg was too large. And some way to limit it to max size > was needed - the dma_max_mapping_size "should" be just fine. > > > > > Once that is fixed I'd like to kill off swiotlb_max_segment as it is > > a horribly confusing API. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
