Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1483918 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-15 10:50 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-09-15 10:50 +0200 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH 3/4] dt-binding: remoteproc: venus rproc dt binding document Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com> - 2016-09-15 10:50 +0200
| From | Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 10:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/4] dt-binding: remoteproc: venus rproc dt binding document |
| Message-ID | <shAwN-4Ih-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Hi Bjorn,
On 2016-09-02 22:12, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Fri 02 Sep 04:52 PDT 2016, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>
>> On 2016-09-01 16:58, Stanimir Varbanov wrote:
>> ...
>>>>>> But I presume we have the implementation issue of dma_alloc_coherent()
>>>>>> failing in either case with the 5MB size. I think we need to look into
>>>>> I'd be good to include Marek Szyprowski? At least he will know what
>>>>> design restrictions there are.
>>>>>
>>>> Please do. The more I look at this the more I think we must use the
>>>> existing infrastructure for allocating "dma memory". Getting
>>>> dma_alloc_coherent() supporting non-power-of-2 memory regions would
>>> Just to be precise it should be dma_alloc_from_coherent().
>>>
>>> Marek, what is your opinion on that, can we make dma_alloc_from_coherent
>>> able to allocate memory for sizes with bigger granularity.
>>>
>>> For your convenience here [1] is the mail thread.
>> There should be no technical restrictions to add support for bigger
>> granularity than power-of-2. dma_alloc_from_coherent uses standard
>> bitmap based allocator, so it already support tracking allocations of
>> arbitrary size.
> I believe we should be able to change the parameter of
> bitmap_{find_free,release,allocate}_region() to take a size rather than
> an order.
>
> The mask used in __reg_op() is an unsigned long, that is stamped over
> the region to be masked or cleared, so there are some clear restrictions
> in what parameters we can pass there - without having to break this
> operation up in steps.
>
> But if drive the offset by taking the next power-of-two of the size and
> then align the number of bits to min(count, BITS_PER_LONG) we should
> retain the performance characteristics and requirements of __reg_op().
>
>> However for the small allocations (smaller than 64KiB?, 512KiB?) it
>> would make sense to keep nearest-power-of-2 round up to prevent memory
>> fragmentation.
> But in our case each bit matches a single page, so by making sure the
> mask always fills the unsigned long in the larger cases we would end up
> with having to align things to 128kb (or 256kb if unsigned long is 64
> bit).
By preventing memory fragmentation I wanted to align small allocations (less
than the mentioned 64KiB or 512KiB) to nearest-power-of-2 of their size just
like it is done now.
Best regards
--
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web