Re: CMA alignment question

[Michal Nazarewicz]

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,  MichaÅ âmina86â Nazarewicz    (o o)
ooo +--<mpn@xxxxxxxxxx>--<xmpp:mina86@xxxxxxxxxx>--ooO--(_)--Ooo--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/