[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190502132610.GA3107@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 15:26:10 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@...il.com>, robin.murphy@....com,
vdumpa@...dia.com, linux@...linux.org.uk, will.deacon@....com,
joro@...tes.org, m.szyprowski@...sung.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, tony@...mide.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 RFC/RFT 1/5] ARM: dma-mapping: Add fallback normal
page allocations
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 04:24:21PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> My reading of the arm32 __dma_alloc() is that if the conditions are
> right for the CMA allocator (allows blocking) and there is a default CMA
> area or a per-device one, the call ends up in cma_alloc() without any
> fallback if such allocation fails. Whether this is on purpose, I'm not
> entirely sure. There are a couple of arm32 SoCs which call
> dma_declare_contiguous() or dma_contiguous_reserve_area() and a few DT
> files describing a specific CMA range (e.g. arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i.dtsi
> with a comment that address must be kept in the lower 256MB).
>
> If ZONE_DMA is set up correctly so that cma_alloc() is (or can be made)
> interchangeable with alloc_pages(GFP_DMA) from a device DMA capability
> perspective , I think it should be fine to have such fallback.
Indeed. I missed arm32 being different from everyone else, but we
already addresses that in another thread. Sorry for misleading
everyone.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists