On 10/13/2012 05:52 AM, Hillf Danton wrote: > Hi Alexander, > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:34 AM, Alexander Duyck > <alexander.h.du...@intel.com> wrote: >> This change replaces all references to the virtual address for io_tlb_end >> with references to the physical address io_tlb_end. The main advantage of >> replacing the virtual address with a physical address is that we can avoid >> having to do multiple translations from the virtual address to the physical >> one needed for testing an existing DMA address. >> >> Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.du...@intel.com> >> --- >> >> lib/swiotlb.c | 24 +++++++++++++----------- >> 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/lib/swiotlb.c b/lib/swiotlb.c >> index f114bf6..19aac9f 100644 >> --- a/lib/swiotlb.c >> +++ b/lib/swiotlb.c >> @@ -57,7 +57,8 @@ int swiotlb_force; >> * swiotlb_tbl_sync_single_*, to see if the memory was in fact allocated by >> this >> * API. >> */ >> -static char *io_tlb_start, *io_tlb_end; >> +static char *io_tlb_start; >> +phys_addr_t io_tlb_end; > If add io_tlb_start_phy and io_tlb_end_phy, could we get same results > with less hunks? > > Hillf
What do you mean by less hunks? Are you referring to the memory space? If so, then the patches I am submitting do not impact how much space is used for the bounce buffer. The only real result of these patches is that the total code path is significantly reduced since we don't have to perform any virtual to physical translations in the hot-path. Thanks, Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
