From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753281Ab0CZBDl (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:03:41 -0400 Received: from mail-px0-f194.google.com ([209.85.216.194]:56626 "EHLO mail-px0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752657Ab0CZBDj convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:03:39 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=UAmBktPQ0nGUxeNSg2ncJBJ6QxUxaaBszSI7GggzySToBn4ubmATVZMnNsoWiAcr7Q ZlaFbfmkF5P2AirMaAFSTSsJd6ZCTQbvxoNAatsBaHnRmil8CNqcFIbRo+OlpyUNqhGP jvvlcggI35wRqjUI3uJflQG0eniTrcWPBFHGU= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20100304135738C.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> References: <4B8F213B.40603@gmail.com> <20100304135738C.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 19:03:37 -0600 Message-ID: <51f3faa71003251803q7ccec5d5x82bc277c590e2848@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] fix problems with NETIF_F_HIGHDMA in networking drivers v2 From: Robert Hancock To: FUJITA Tomonori Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, bzolnier@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 10:58 PM, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 20:55:55 -0600 > Robert Hancock wrote: > >> Many networking drivers have issues with the use of the NETIF_F_HIGHDMA flag. >> This flag actually indicates whether or not the device/driver can handle >> skbs located in high memory (as opposed to lowmem). If the flag isn't set and >> the skb is located in highmem, it needs to be copied. >> There are two problems with this flag: >> >> -Many drivers only set the flag when they detect they can use 64-bit DMA, >> since otherwise they could receive DMA addresses that they can't handle >> (which on platforms without IOMMU/SWIOTLB support is fatal). This means that if >> 64-bit support isn't available, even buffers located below 4GB will get copied >> unnecessarily. >> >> -Some drivers set the flag even though they can't actually handle 64-bit DMA, >> which would mean that on platforms without IOMMU/SWIOTLB they would get a DMA >> mapping error if the memory they received happened to be located above 4GB. >> >> In order to fix this problem, the existing NETIF_F_HIGHDMA flag is split into >> two new flags: >> >> NETIF_F_DMA_HIGH - indicates if the driver can do DMA to highmem at all >> NETIF_F_DMA_64BIT - indicates the driver can do DMA to 64-bit memory > > Why can't you use dev->dma_mask here like the following? > > Then you can fix drivers that use the NETIF_F_HIGHDMA flag to indicate > that they don't support 64bit DMA. > > diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c > index bcc490c..b15f94b 100644 > --- a/net/core/dev.c > +++ b/net/core/dev.c > @@ -129,6 +129,7 @@ >  #include >  #include >  #include > +#include > >  #include "net-sysfs.h" > > @@ -1787,14 +1788,21 @@ static inline int illegal_highdma(struct net_device *dev, struct sk_buff *skb) >  { >  #ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM >        int i; > +       if (!(dev->features & NETIF_F_HIGHDMA)) { > +               for (i = 0; i < skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags; i++) > +                       if (PageHighMem(skb_shinfo(skb)->frags[i].page)) > +                               return 1; > +       } > > -       if (dev->features & NETIF_F_HIGHDMA) > -               return 0; > - > -       for (i = 0; i < skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags; i++) > -               if (PageHighMem(skb_shinfo(skb)->frags[i].page)) > -                       return 1; > +       if (PCI_DMA_BUS_IS_PHYS) { > +               struct device *pdev = dev->dev.parent; > > +               for (i = 0; i < skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags; i++) { > +                       dma_addr_t addr = page_to_phys(skb_shinfo(skb)->frags[i].page); > +                       if (!pdev->dma_mask || addr + PAGE_SIZE - 1 > *pdev->dma_mask) > +                               return 1; > +               } > +       } >  #endif >        return 0; >  } > This seems like it could be a reasonable approach. The only thing is that in this code you're returning 1 if the parent device has no DMA mask set. Wouldn't it make more sense to return 0 in this case? I'm assuming that in that situation it's a virtual device not backed by any hardware and there should be no DMA mask restriction...