Re: API change for bus_dma

From: Andrew Gallatin (gallatin_at_cs.duke.edu)
Date: 06/27/03

  • Next message: Scott Long: "Re: API change for bus_dma" 
    Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:21:58 -0400 (EDT)
To: Scott Long <scott_long@btc.adaptec.com>

    Scott Long writes:
    >
    > The approach taken with busdma is that you don't assume coherency. The

    Unfortunately, in our application we must assume coherency in some
    situations. We have kernel memory mmap'ed into user space for
    zero-copy io of small messages. Doing a system call to force the dma
    sync would add unacceptable latency. (we're talking sub 10us latencies
    here, without syscalls).

    > idea is to call bus_dmamap_sync() with the appropriate opcode to signal
    > pre|post read|write, and have that take care of the platform-specific
    > magic. On i386 when bouncing does not occur, these are NOOP, otherwise
    > the actual bouncing bcopy() takes place. On sparc64 it looks like it
    > does the appropriate IOMMU and memory barrier magic.

    Sure, but we're a 64-bit card and never bounce. If we've bounced, we
    might as well take the ball and go home, so to speak ;)

    Anyway, this has saved me a lot of time. Its now apparent that
    there's no point in our using busdma, since the main gain would have
    been to enable us to run on sparc64. Directly using physical
    addresses works great everywhere else..

    Drew

    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

  • Next message: Scott Long: "Re: API change for bus_dma"

    Relevant Pages