linux-kernel - Re: [LKML] Re: [PATCH v3] ad7877: keep dma rx buffers in seperate cache lines

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 19 May 2010 23:38:34 +0900
From:	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
To:	npiggin@...e.de
Cc:	jw@...ix.com, dwmw2@...radead.org, marc@...silica.com,
	vapier.adi@...il.com, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, cl@...ux.com,
	penberg@...helsinki.fi, mpm@...enic.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	os@...ix.com, Michael.Hennerich@...log.com,
	linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	dg@...ix.com, osw@...ix.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
	dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net, grant.likely@...retlab.ca,
	chris@...kel.net, Piet.Delaney@...silica.com
Subject: Re: [LKML] Re: [PATCH v3] ad7877: keep dma rx buffers in seperate
 cache lines

On Wed, 19 May 2010 23:52:26 +1000
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> wrote:

> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 03:44:30PM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:36:56PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 02:17:47PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The 'cacheline aligned' misconception did manage to get into the ad7877
> > > > driver in commit 3843384a though -- it now uses ____cacheline_aligned
> > > > instead of __attribute__((__aligned__(ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN))) as it
> > > > should.
> > > 
> > > OK so long as there is not a "must be cacheline aligned" requirement.
> > > Your proposal for a __dma_aligned attribute in an arch header looks
> > > like a good idea there.
> > 
> > Would you happen to know of other potential users?  At this point I'd
> > much rather just allocate the buffers dynamically and hide the issue
> > nicely behind kmalloc().
> 
> I don't think we need to hide the fact that some platforms have
> specific alignment restrictions for DMA. So if any drivers make use
> of the alignment, I see no problem with __dma_aligned.

IIRC, such was proposed several times:

http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org/msg12633.html

I guess that we agreed that it's better to tell driver writers to just
use kmalloc.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/