Re: CMA alignment question

[Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@mina86.com>]

On Tue, Nov 04 2014, Gregory Fong wrote:
> The alignment in cma_alloc() is done w.r.t. the bitmap.  This is a
> problem when, for example:
>
> - a device requires 16M (order 12) alignment
> - the CMA region is not 16 M aligned
>
> In such a case, can result with the CMA region starting at, say,
> 0x2f800000 but any allocation you make from there will be aligned from
> there.  Requesting an allocation of 32 M with 16 M alignment, will
> result in an allocation from 0x2f800000 to 0x31800000, which doesn't
> work very well if your strange device requires 16M alignment.
>
> This doesn't have the behavior I would expect, which would be for the
> allocation to be aligned w.r.t. the start of memory.  I realize that
> aligning the CMA region is an option, but don't see why cma_alloc()
> aligns to the start of the CMA region.  Is there a good reason for
> having cma_alloc() alignment work this way?

No, it's a bug.  The alignment should indicate alignment of physical
address not position in CMA region.

-- 
Best regards,                                         _     _
.o. | Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of      o' \,=./ `o
..o | Computer Science,  Michał “mina86” Nazarewicz    (o o)
ooo +--<mpn@google.com>--<xmpp:mina86@jabber.org>--ooO--(_)--Ooo--

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>