[Intel-gfx] i915 and swiotlb_max_segment

[Joonas Lahtinen]

+ Tvrtko to take a look

Quoting Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk (2021-05-20 18:12:58)
> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 05:25:25PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > swiotlb_max_segment is a rather strange "API" export by swiotlb.c,
> > and i915 is the only (remaining) user.
> > 
> > swiotlb_max_segment returns 0 if swiotlb is not in use, 1 if
> > SWIOTLB_FORCE is set or swiotlb-zen is set, and the swiotlb segment
> > size when swiotlb is otherwise enabled.
> > 
> > i915 then uses it to:
> > 
> >  a) decided on the max order in i915_gem_object_get_pages_internal
> >  b) decide on a max segment size in i915_sg_segment_size
> > 
> > for a) it really seems i915 should switch to dma_alloc_noncoherent
> > or dma_alloc_noncontigous ASAP instead of using alloc_page and
> > streaming DMA mappings.  Any chance I could trick one of the i915
> > maintaines into doing just that given that the callchain is not
> > exactly trivial?
> > 
> > For b) I'm not sure swiotlb and i915 really agree on the meaning
> > of the value.  swiotlb_set_max_segment basically returns the entire
> > size of the swiotlb buffer, while i915 seems to use it to limit
> > the size each scatterlist entry.  It seems like dma_max_mapping_size
> > might be the best value to use here.
> 
> Yes. The background behind that was SWIOTLB would fail because well, the
> size of the sg was too large. And some way to limit it to max size
> was needed - the dma_max_mapping_size "should" be just fine.
> 
> > 
> > Once that is fixed I'd like to kill off swiotlb_max_segment as it is
> > a horribly confusing API.