On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:10:42 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 02:45:03 +0900
>
> > dma_4u_map_sg() has:
> >
> > if (segstart != s) {
> > /* We cannot merge if:
> > * - allocated dma_addr isn't contiguous to previous allocation
> > */
> > if ((dma_addr != dma_next) ||
> > (outs->dma_length + s->length > max_seg_size) ||
> > (is_span_boundary(out_entry, base_shift,
> > /* Can't merge: create a new segment */
> > segstart = s;
> > outcount++;
> > outs = sg_next(outs);
> >
> > So if the IOMMU allocated dma_addr isn't contiguous to previous
> > allocation, it might not merge segments that the block layer expected
> > the IOMMU to merge.
> >
> > We need kinda two phase merging code such as the old SPARC64 IOMMU
> > code and PARISC IOMMUs though I like the new simple SPARC64 IOMMU
> > code.
>
> I see.
>
> I wonder if all that complexity is really worth it. Also, all of this
> IOMMU allocation and mapping code runs under a spinlock with hw IRQs
> disabled.
>
> More and more I'm seeing that it's likely better to remove the VMERGE
> code. I can't see what it really buys us anymore, and to make it work
> requires quite a large amount of complexity in the IOMMU layer.
Agreed, especially with modern HBAs, the VMERGE accounting isn't
useful, I think. The recent IOMMU implementations, Intel VT-d and AMD
virtualization one, don't do even virtual merging.
I'm fine with removing the VMERGE accounting in the block layer if
Jens and the users are happy about it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
