Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] powerpc:Fix rheap alignment problem | From | Benjamin Herrenschmidt <> | Date | Mon, 03 Jul 2006 21:08:49 +1000 |
| |
On Sun, 2006-07-02 at 08:18 +0300, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: > On Sunday 02 July 2006 06:54, Rune Torgersen wrote: > > From: Pantelis Antoniou > > Sent: Sat 7/1/2006 9:50 AM > > >Since genalloc is the blessed linux thing it might be best to use that & remove > > >rheap completely. Oh well... > > > > Two problems with genalloc that I can see (for CPM programming): > > 1) (minor) Does not have a way to specify alignment (genalloc does it for you) > > 2) (major problerm, at least for me) Does not have a way to allocate a specified address in the pool. > > > > 2 is needed esp when programming MCC drivers, since a lot of the datastructures must be in DP RAM _and_ be in a specific spot. And if you cannot tell the allocator that I am using a specific address, then the allocator might very well give somebody else that portion of RAM. The only solution without a fixed allocator is to allocate ALL memory in the DP RAM and use your own allocator. > > > > Yeah, that too. > > Too bad there are no main tree drivers like that, but they do exist. > > One could conceivably hack genalloc to do that, but will end up with > something complex too. > > BTW, there are other uEngine based architectures with similar alignment > requirements. > > So in conclusion, for the in-tree drivers genalloc is sufficient as an cpm memory allocator. > For some out of tree drivers, it is not.
Sounds like a good enough justification to keep rheap for now then.
Ben.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |