Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1580002 > unrolled thread

Re: [RFC simple allocator v2 0/2] Simple allocator

Started byLaura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>
First post2017-02-13 20:10 +0100
Last post2017-02-14 17:50 +0100
Articles 2 — 2 participants

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.


Contents

  Re: [RFC simple allocator v2 0/2] Simple allocator Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com> - 2017-02-13 20:10 +0100
    Re: [RFC simple allocator v2 0/2] Simple allocator Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2017-02-14 17:50 +0100

#1580002 — Re: [RFC simple allocator v2 0/2] Simple allocator

FromLaura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>
Date2017-02-13 20:10 +0100
SubjectRe: [RFC simple allocator v2 0/2] Simple allocator
Message-ID<tauaC-7Oj-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
On 02/13/2017 10:18 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 03:45:04PM +0100, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
> 
>> An other question is: do we have others memory regions that could be interested
>> by this new framework ? I have in mind that some title memory regions could use
>> it or replace ION heaps (system, carveout, etc...).
>> Maybe it only solve CMA allocation issue, in this case there is no need to create
>> a new framework but only a dedicated ioctl.
> 
> The software defined networking people seemed to think they had a use
> case for this as well.  They're not entirely upstream of course but
> still...
> 

This is the first I've heard of anything like this. Do you have any more
details/reading?

Thanks,
Laura

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1580657

FromMark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Date2017-02-14 17:50 +0100
Message-ID<taOsF-4e9-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1580002

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:01:14AM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 02/13/2017 10:18 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

> > The software defined networking people seemed to think they had a use
> > case for this as well.  They're not entirely upstream of course but
> > still...

> This is the first I've heard of anything like this. Do you have any more
> details/reading?

No, unfortunately it was in a meeting and I was asking for more details
on what specifically the hardware was doing myself.  My understanding is
that it's very similar to the GPU/video needs.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web