Re: [PATCH/RFCv4 0/6] The Contiguous Memory Allocator framework

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Sat, 2010-08-28 at 15:58 +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > Isn't the proposed CMA thing vulnerable to the exact same problem? If
> > you allow sharing of regions and plug some allocator in there you get
> > the same problem. If you can solve it there, you can solve it for any
> > kind of reservation scheme.
> 
> Since with cma you can assign a region exclusively to a driver you can ensure
> that this problem does not occur. Of course, if you allow sharing then you will
> end up with the same type of problem unless you know that there is only one
> driver at a time that will use that memory.

I think you could do the same thing, the proposed page allocator
solutions still needs to manage pageblock state, you can manage those
the same as you would your cma regions -- the difference is that you get
the option of letting the rest of the system use the memory in a
transparent manner if you don't need it.


> There is obviously a trade-off. I was just wondering how costly it is.
> E.g. would it be a noticeable delay making 64 MB memory available in this
> way on a, say, 600 MHz ARM. 

Right, dunno really, rather depends on the memory bandwidth of your arm
device I suspect. It is something you'd have to test. 

In case the machine isn't fast enough, there really isn't anything you
can do but keep the memory empty at all times; unless of course the
device in question needs it.

--
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>