Re: [PATCH net-next] xsk: introduce xsk_dma_ops

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


On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 03:22:39PM +0200, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> If DMA syncs are not needed on your x86_64 DMA-coherent system, it
> doesn't mean we all don't need it.

If the DMA isn't actually a DMA (as in the virtio case, or other
cases that instead have to do their own dma mapping at much lower
layers) syncs generally don't make sense.

> Instead of filling pointers with
> "default" callbacks, you could instead avoid indirect calls at all when
> no custom DMA ops are specified. Pls see how for example Christoph did
> that for direct DMA. It would cost only one if-else for case without
> custom DMA ops here instead of an indirect call each time.

So yes, I think the abstraction here should not be another layer of
DMA ops, but the option to DMA map or not at all.
Virtualization mailing list

[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux