Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 08:12:07 -0700 From: Tim Kientzle <tim@kientzle.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: Hans Petter Selasky <hans.petter.selasky@bitfrost.no>, freebsd-arm@freebsd.org, freebsd-mips@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Partial cacheline flush problems on ARM and MIPS Message-ID: <DA9750F9-7B8A-49AF-8ECA-AC7D565CF3F5@kientzle.com> In-Reply-To: <A749E691-BF25-4B72-B929-56ABEB10F3E9@bsdimp.com> References: <6D83AF9D-577B-4C83-84B7-C4E3B32695FC@bsdimp.com> <zarafa.503b0e81.5c36.1a2f71091ebf9bd2@eric2.bitfrost> <A749E691-BF25-4B72-B929-56ABEB10F3E9@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Aug 27, 2012, at 6:38 AM, Warner Losh wrote: >=20 > On Aug 27, 2012, at 12:06 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: >=20 >> Hi, >> Correct. >>=20 >>> We also need some rules about working with buffers obtained from >>> bus_dmamem_alloc() and external buffers passed to bus_dmamap_load(). = I >>> think the rule should be that a buffer obtained from = bus_dmamem_alloc(), >>> or more formally any region of memory mapped by a bus_dmamap_load(), = is >>> a single logical object which can only be accessed by one entity at = a >>> time. That means that there cannot be two concurrent DMA operations >>> happening in different regions of the same buffer, nor can DMA and = CPU >>> access be happening concurrently even if in different parts of the >>> buffer. =20 >>=20 >> Is this something which we can fix using a simple = __align(USB_DMA_ALIGN) on elements in C-structures which are allowed to = be DMA loaded. >=20 > No. I don't think so. the reason is that you can't define = USB_DMA_ALGIN to be a constant on MIPS, at least, or I think ARM because = that's determined at run time. But don't mbuf structures do pretty much what Hans is suggesting? Why is mbuf okay? Tim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?DA9750F9-7B8A-49AF-8ECA-AC7D565CF3F5>