[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADtm3G7DtGkvPk36Fiunwen8grw-94V6=iv82iusGumfNJkn-g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 13:03:22 -0800
From: Gregory Fong <gregory.0xf0@...il.com>
To: linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: lauraa@...eaurora.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, mina86@...a86.com,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
Subject: CMA alignment question
Hi all,
The alignment in cma_alloc() is done w.r.t. the bitmap. This is a
problem when, for example:
- a device requires 16M (order 12) alignment
- the CMA region is not 16 M aligned
In such a case, can result with the CMA region starting at, say,
0x2f800000 but any allocation you make from there will be aligned from
there. Requesting an allocation of 32 M with 16 M alignment, will
result in an allocation from 0x2f800000 to 0x31800000, which doesn't
work very well if your strange device requires 16M alignment.
This doesn't have the behavior I would expect, which would be for the
allocation to be aligned w.r.t. the start of memory. I realize that
aligning the CMA region is an option, but don't see why cma_alloc()
aligns to the start of the CMA region. Is there a good reason for
having cma_alloc() alignment work this way?
Thanks and regards,
Gregory
--
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