Re: Infrastructure for zerocopy I/O

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 07:17:31PM +0100, Markus Rechberger wrote:
> 1. the memset on isochronous transfers to empty the buffers in order
> to avoid leaking raw memory to userspace (this costs a lot on intel
> Atoms and is also noticeable on other systems).
> 
> 2. the memory fragmentation. Seems like recent systems have a better
> performance here since we did not get that report for several months
> now, or maybe the user behavior changed.
> Some older Linux systems (maybe 2-3 years old) triggered this issue
> way more often.

I guess if we get transparent zerocopy, both of these are going away
just like with your patch, right? The only difference is really who sets up
the memory area (the kernel or not).

Alan, could we perhaps let the zerocopy flag make the request fail (instead
of going through a bounce buffer) if direct DMA is not possible? That way,
it would be quite obvious that you need to allocate the memory some other way
instead of silently hitting the issues Markus mention.

/* Steinar */
-- 
Homepage: https://www.sesse.net/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Media]     [Linux Input]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Old Linux USB Devel Archive]

  Powered by Linux