linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] misc: sram: add support for configurable allocation order

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: <1352985095.2399.184.camel@pizza.hi.pengutronix.de>
Date:	Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:11:35 +0100
From:	Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
	Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
	Richard Zhao <richard.zhao@...escale.com>,
	Huang Shijie <shijie8@...il.com>,
	Dong Aisheng <dong.aisheng@...aro.org>,
	Matt Porter <mporter@...com>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
	devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] misc: sram: add support for configurable
 allocation order

Am Mittwoch, den 14.11.2012, 19:15 +0000 schrieb Grant Likely:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:27:33 +0200, Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> > From: Matt Porter <mporter@...com>
> > 
> > Adds support for setting the genalloc pool's minimum allocation
> > order via DT or platform data. The allocation order is optional
> > for both the DT property and platform data case. If it is not
> > present then the order defaults to PAGE_SHIFT to preserve the
> > current behavior.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Matt Porter <mporter@...com>
> > Signed-off-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/sram.txt |   12 ++++++++++-
> >  drivers/misc/sram.c                             |   14 ++++++++++++-
> >  include/linux/platform_data/sram.h              |   25 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  3 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >  create mode 100644 include/linux/platform_data/sram.h
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/sram.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/sram.txt
> > index b64136c..b1705ec 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/sram.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/sram.txt
> > @@ -8,10 +8,20 @@ Required properties:
> >  
> >  - reg : SRAM iomem address range
> >  
> > -Example:
> > +Optional properties:
> > +
> > +- alloc-order : Minimum allocation order for the SRAM pool
> 
> Looks okay, but I think the property name is confusing. I for one had
> no idea what 'order' would be and why it was important. I had to read
> the code to figure it out.
> 
> It does raise the question though of what is this binding actually
> for? Does it reflect a limitation of the SRAM? or of the hardware using
> the SRAM? Or is it an optimization? How do you expect to use it?

If I am not mistaken, it is about the expected use case. A driver
allocating many small buffers would quickly fill small SRAMs if the
allocations were of PAGE_SIZE granularity.

I wonder if a common allocation size (say, 512 bytes instead of
PAGE_SIZE) can be found that every prospective user could be reasonably
happy with?

> Assuming it is appropriate to put into the device tree, I'd suggest a
> different name. Instead of 'order', how about 'sram-alloc-align' (in
> address bits) or 'sram-alloc-min-size' (in bytes).

A size in bytes would be the most obvious to me, although that allows to
enter values that are not a power of two.

regards
Philipp


--
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/