[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgPqauyKD9CoQg2AAtV=ygpS_fAahhgzPAe99k5Kush6A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 12:35:45 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: Isaac Manjarres <isaacmanjarres@...gle.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] crypto: Use ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN instead of ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN
On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 11:33 AM Catalin Marinas
<catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
>
> I started refreshing the series but I got stuck on having to do bouncing
> for small buffers even if when they go through the iommu (and I don't
> have the set up to test it yet).
May I suggest doing that "force bouncing" and "change kmalloc to have
a 8-byte minalign" to be the two first commits?
IOW, if we force bouncing for unaligned DMA, then that *should* mean
that allocation alignment is no longer a correctness issue, it's
purely a performance one due to the bouncing.
So then the rest of the series should be about "ok, this is actually a
hot enough allocation that I want to force alignment", and be purely
about performance, not correctness.
No?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists