[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220224063330.GB20383@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 07:33:30 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, cl@...ux.com, 42.hyeyoo@...il.com,
penberg@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
vbabka@...e.cz, David.Laight@...lab.com, david@...hat.com,
herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, davem@...emloft.net,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, steffen.klassert@...unet.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, gor@...ux.ibm.com, agordeev@...ux.ibm.com,
borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com, svens@...ux.ibm.com,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, michael@...le.cc,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, wsa@...nel.org,
Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vineeth Vijayan <vneethv@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/22] Don't use kmalloc() with GFP_DMA
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 08:18:08PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > The long term goal is to remove ZONE_DMA entirely at least for
> > architectures that only use the small 16MB ISA-style one. It can
> > then be replaced with for example a CMA area and fall into a movable
> > zone. I'd have to prototype this first and see how it applies to the
> > s390 case. It might not be worth it and maybe we should replace
> > ZONE_DMA and ZONE_DMA32 with a ZONE_LIMITED for those use cases as
> > the amount covered tends to not be totally out of line for what we
> > built the zone infrastructure.
>
> So probably I'm missing something; but for small systems where we
> would only have ZONE_DMA, how would a CMA area within this zone
> improve things?
It would not, but more importantly we would not need it at all. The
thinking here is really about the nasty 16MB ISA-style zone DMA.
a 31-bit something rather different.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists