Re: [PATCHv4 0/8] Support for Tegra 2D hardware
From: Mark Zhang
Date: Thu Jan 03 2013 - 00:55:38 EST
On 01/03/2013 01:50 PM, Terje Bergström wrote:
> On 03.01.2013 05:31, Mark Zhang wrote:
>> Sorry I didn't get it. Yes, in current design, you can pin all mem
>> handles in one time but I haven't found anything related with "locking
>> only once per submit".
>> My idea is:
>> - remove "job->addr_phys"
>> - assign "job->reloc_addr_phys" & "job->gather_addr_phys" separately
>> - In "pin_job_mem", just call "host1x_memmgr_pin_array_ids" twice to
>> fill the "reloc_addr_phy" & "gather_addr_phys".
>> Anything I misunderstood?
> The current design uses CMA, which makes pinning basically a no-op. When
> we have IOMMU support, pinning requires calling into IOMMU. Updating
> SMMU tables requires locking, and probably maintenance before SMMU code
> also requires its own locked data tables. For example, preventing
> duplicate pinning might require a global table of handles.
> Putting all of the handles in one table allows doing duplicate detection
> across cmdbuf and reloc tables. This allows pinning each buffer exactly
> once, which reduces number of calls to IOMMU.
Thanks Terje. Yes, I understand IOMMU will bring in more operations. But
I'm not convinced that separating 2 arrays have lots of overheads than
putting them into one array.
But it doesn't matter, after the IOMMU support version released, I can
read this part of codes again. Let's talk about this at that time.
>> "host1x_cma_pin_array_ids" doesn't return negative value right now, so
>> maybe you need to take a look at it.
> True, and also a consequence of using CMA: pinning can never fail. With
> IOMMU, pinning can fail.
Got it. Agree.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/