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]
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=cJisuP8=_YSg4h-nsjGj3zsM7sg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:58:25 -0500
From:	Zach Pfeffer <zach.pfeffer@...aro.org>
To:	Daniel Stone <daniels@...labora.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
	Ankita Garg <ankita@...ibm.com>,
	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...eaurora.org>,
	Jesse Barker <jesse.barker@...aro.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] [PATCH 08/10] mm: cma: Contiguous Memory
 Allocator added

On 14 June 2011 12:01, Daniel Stone <daniels@...labora.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 06:03:00PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Tuesday 14 June 2011, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
>> > On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:49:29 +0200, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>> > > Please explain the exact requirements that lead you to defining multiple
>> > > contexts.
>> >
>> > Some devices may have access only to some banks of memory.  Some devices
>> > may use different banks of memory for different purposes.
>>
>> For all I know, that is something that is only true for a few very special
>> Samsung devices, and is completely unrelated of the need for contiguous
>> allocations, so this approach becomes pointless as soon as the next
>> generation of that chip grows an IOMMU, where we don't handle the special
>> bank attributes. Also, the way I understood the situation for the Samsung
>> SoC during the Budapest discussion, it's only a performance hack, not a
>> functional requirement, unless you count '1080p playback' as a functional
>> requirement.

Coming in mid topic...

I've seen this split bank allocation in Qualcomm and TI SoCs, with
Samsung, that makes 3 major SoC vendors (I would be surprised if
Nvidia didn't also need to do this) - so I think some configurable
method to control allocations is necessarily. The chips can't do
decode without it (and by can't do I mean 1080P and higher decode is
not functionally useful). Far from special, this would appear to be
the default.

> Hm, I think that was something similar but not quite the same: talking
> about having allocations split to lie between two banks of RAM to
> maximise the read/write speed for performance reasons.  That's something
> that can be handled in the allocator, rather than an API constraint, as
> this is.
>
> Not that I know of any hardware which is limited as such, but eh.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linaro-mm-sig mailing list
> Linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org
> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-mm-sig
>
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ