[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180925044421.GA11163@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 21:44:21 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:XFS FILESYSTEM" <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: block: DMA alignment of IO buffer allocated from slab
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 09:10:43PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 9/24/18 8:28 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > [ ... ] Because if we have to
> > round all allocations below 64 bytes up to 64 bytes, [ ... ]
> Have you noticed that in another e-mail in this thread it has been explained
> why it is not necessary on x86 to align buffers allocated by kmalloc() on a
> 64-byte boundary even if these buffers are used for DMA?
Oh, so drivers which do this only break on !x86. Yes, that'll work
out great.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists