From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] dma-direct: do not allocate a single page from CMA area Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:20:10 +0100 Message-ID: <20181120092010.GA7270@lst.de> References: <20181031200355.19945-1-nicoleotsuka@gmail.com> <13d60076-33ad-b542-4d17-4d717d5aa4d3@arm.com> <20181102063542.GA17073@lst.de> <20181105224050.GA10411@Asurada-Nvidia.nvidia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181105224050.GA10411@Asurada-Nvidia.nvidia.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Nicolin Chen Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Robin Murphy , m.szyprowski@samsung.com, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vdumpa@nvidia.com List-Id: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 02:40:51PM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote: > > > In general, this seems to make sense to me. It does represent a theoretical > > > change in behaviour for devices which have their own CMA area somewhere > > > other than kernel memory, and only ever make non-atomic allocations, but > > > I'm not sure whether that's a realistic or common enough case to really > > > worry about. > > > > Yes, I think we should make the decision in dma_alloc_from_contiguous > > based on having a per-dev CMA area or not. There is a lot of cruft in > > It seems that cma_alloc() already has a CMA area check? Would it > be duplicated to have a similar one in dma_alloc_from_contiguous? It isn't duplicate if it serves a different purpose. > > this area that should be cleaned up while we're at it, like always > > falling back to the normal page allocator if there is no CMA area or > > nothing suitable found in dma_alloc_from_contiguous instead of > > having to duplicate all that in the caller. > > Am I supposed to clean up things that's mentioned above by moving > the fallback allocator into dma_alloc_from_contiguous, or to just > move my change (the count check) into dma_alloc_from_contiguous? > > I understand that'd be great to have a cleanup, yet feel it could > be done separately as this patch isn't really a cleanup change. I can take care of any cleanups. I've been trying to dust up that area anyway.