Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:01:26 +0900
From:   Cho KyongHo <pullip.cho@samsung.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, janghyuck.kim@samsung.com,
        catalin.marinas@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        hyesoo.yu@samsung.com, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        robin.murphy@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dma-mapping: introduce relaxed version of dma sync
Message-ID: <20200819020121.GA70898@KEI>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200818161006.GA25124@infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
        boundary="----wn.C777VfLFf0j4dI6teQ5O7yZ9hP4.it_WB71vmM7CNsG.7=_30f47_"
CMS-TYPE: 102P
DLP-Filter: Pass
References: <CGME20200818075050epcas2p15c780650f5f6b4a54ce731c273d24c98@epcas2p1.samsung.com>
        <1597736591-20457-1-git-send-email-pullip.cho@samsung.com>
        <20200818082852.GA15145@willie-the-truck> <20200818093739.GB191752@KEI>
        <20200818100756.GA15543@willie-the-truck>
        <20200818161006.GA25124@infradead.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

------wn.C777VfLFf0j4dI6teQ5O7yZ9hP4.it_WB71vmM7CNsG.7=_30f47_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 05:10:06PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:07:57AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > so I'm not sure
> > > > that we should be complicating the implementation like this to try to
> > > > make it "fast".
> > > > 
> > > I agree that this patch makes the implementation of dma API a bit more
> > > but I don't think this does not impact its complication seriously.
> > 
> > It's death by a thousand cuts; this patch further fragments the architecture
> > backends and leads to arm64-specific behaviour which consequently won't get
> > well tested by anybody else. Now, it might be worth it, but there's not
> > enough information here to make that call.
> 
> So it turns out I misread the series (*cough*, crazy long lines,
> *cough*), and it does not actually expose a new API as I thought, but
> it still makes a total mess of the internal interface.  It turns out
> that on the for cpu side we already have arch_sync_dma_for_cpu_all,
> which should do all that is needed.  We could do the equivalent for
> the to device side, but only IFF there really is a major benefit for
> something that actually is mainstream and matters.
> 
Indeed, arch_sync_dma_for_cpu_all() is used where the new internal API
arch_sync_barrier_for_cpu() should be called. I just thought it is a
special hook for MIPS.
In the next version of the patch series, I should consider using
arch_sync_dma_for_cpu_all() and introducting its 'for_dev' version with
some performance data to show the benefit of the change.

Thank you for the proposal.

KyongHo

------wn.C777VfLFf0j4dI6teQ5O7yZ9hP4.it_WB71vmM7CNsG.7=_30f47_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"


------wn.C777VfLFf0j4dI6teQ5O7yZ9hP4.it_WB71vmM7CNsG.7=_30f47_--