On 28-Mar-19 19:27, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>> + unsigned long max_page_shift,
>>>> + int *count, u8 *shift, u32 *ncont)
>>>> +{
>>>> + unsigned long page_shift = umem->page_shift;
>>>> + struct scatterlist *sg;
>>>> + u64 base = ~0, p = 0;
>>>> + unsigned long tmp;
>>>> + unsigned long m;
>>>> + u64 len, pfn;
>>>> + int i = 0;
>>>> + int entry;
>>>> +
>>>> + addr = addr >> page_shift;
>>>> + tmp = (unsigned long)addr;
>>>> + m = find_first_bit(&tmp, BITS_PER_LONG);
>>>> + if (max_page_shift)
>>>> + m = min_t(unsigned long, max_page_shift - page_shift, m);
>>>> +
>>>> + for_each_sg(umem->sg_head.sgl, sg, umem->nmap, entry) {
>>>> + len = sg_dma_len(sg) >> page_shift;
>>>
>>> Shouldn't assume the offset is zero here.
>>
>> Because elements are not necessarily PAGE_SIZE?
>> If page combining is already done by ib_core, this whole function can probably
>> be deleted.
>
> If you test and ack the patch above then page combining will be done
> by the ib_core tomorrow :)
>
>>> This whole function should really better match what Shiraz is
>>> doing. It looks like it is just ib_umem_find_single_pg_size() ??
>>
>> Yea, I think ib_umem_find_single_pg_size() could probably replace this whole
>> function, this work isn't merged yet though right?
>
> Not yes, but if you test it and say it works and you need it, then it
> can accelerate.
Hey Shiraz and Jason -
Looks like the last patchset that contains these new APIs
(ib_umem_find_single_pg_size, return aligned memory blocks from SGL) was
submitted around Feb 19 and got some comments.
Should I wait for the new patches or cherry-pick v1? Sounds like the interface
is going to change, not sure if I should rebase the driver on top of that.
