linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 34/49] gma500: the GEM and GTT code is device independant

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: <20111017223928.4d5ed2c6@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:39:28 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc:	Rob Clark <rob.clark@...aro.org>,
	Patrik Jakobsson <patrik.r.jakobsson@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, greg@...ah.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 34/49] gma500: the GEM and GTT code is device
 independant

> It feels to me like GEM is pulling shmem in an ever more alien direction:
> these device constraints are so foreign to the nature of tmpfs; and
> beyond my expertise, so that I'd be ever more likely to make the wrong
> decisions (mixing swap and uncached pages? hmmm).

For the most part we fixed that. You can now have a GEM object that is
backed by a private memory object rather than having to be tmpfs.
GMA500 uses it to attach 'stolen' memory to GEM handles, and at least
one other pending submission uses it with a private CMA style allocator.

The gma500 report seems an odd one - no GMA500 box has >4GB memory so how
did the test code get a page that was unsuitable - is the test buggy ?

Alan
--
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/