[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <xa1tlhnq7ga7.fsf@mina86.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 23:27:28 +0100
From: Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>
To: Gregory Fong <gregory.0xf0@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: lauraa@...eaurora.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
Subject: Re: CMA alignment question
On Tue, Nov 04 2014, Gregory Fong wrote:
> 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?
No, it's a bug. The alignment should indicate alignment of physical
address not position in CMA region.
--
Best regards, _ _
.o. | Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o
..o | Computer Science, Michał “mina86” Nazarewicz (o o)
ooo +--<mpn@...gle.com>--<xmpp:mina86@...ber.org>--ooO--(_)--Ooo--
--
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