[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200926141428.GB10379@lst.de>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 16:14:28 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...omium.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@...sung.com>,
Seung-Woo Kim <sw0312.kim@...sung.com>,
Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@...hat.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Matt Porter <mporter@...nel.crashing.org>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
linux1394-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
alsa-devel@...a-project.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/18] dma-iommu: implement ->alloc_noncoherent
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 06:46:22PM +0000, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > +static void *iommu_dma_alloc_noncoherent(struct device *dev, size_t size,
> > + dma_addr_t *handle, enum dma_data_direction dir, gfp_t gfp)
> > +{
> > + if (!gfpflags_allow_blocking(gfp)) {
> > + struct page *page;
> > +
> > + page = dma_common_alloc_pages(dev, size, handle, dir, gfp);
> > + if (!page)
> > + return NULL;
> > + return page_address(page);
> > + }
> > +
> > + return iommu_dma_alloc_remap(dev, size, handle, gfp | __GFP_ZERO,
> > + PAGE_KERNEL, 0);
>
> iommu_dma_alloc_remap() makes use of the DMA_ATTR_ALLOC_SINGLE_PAGES attribute
> to optimize the allocations for devices which don't care about how contiguous
> the backing memory is. Do you think we could add an attrs argument to this
> function and pass it there?
>
> As ARM is being moved to the common iommu-dma layer as well, we'll probably
> make use of the argument to support the DMA_ATTR_NO_KERNEL_MAPPING attribute to
> conserve the vmalloc area.
We could probably at it. However I wonder why this is something the
drivers should care about. Isn't this really something that should
be a kernel-wide policy for a given system?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists