Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 5 Feb 2019 15:05:30 -0800 | From | Nicolin Chen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] dma-direct: do not allocate a single page from CMA area |
| |
Hi Christoph
On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 09:23:07AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 01:51:40PM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote: > > The addresses within a single page are always contiguous, so it's > > not so necessary to allocate one single page from CMA area. Since > > the CMA area has a limited predefined size of space, it might run > > out of space in some heavy use case, where there might be quite a > > lot CMA pages being allocated for single pages. > > > > This patch tries to skip CMA allocations of single pages and lets > > them go through normal page allocations unless the allocation has > > a DMA_ATTR_FORCE_CONTIGUOUS attribute. This'd save some resources > > in the CMA area for further more CMA allocations, and it can also > > reduce CMA fragmentations resulted from trivial allocations. > > That DMA_ATTR_FORCE_CONTIGUOUS flag does not make sense. A single > page allocation is per defintion always contigous. > > > again: > > - /* CMA can be used only in the context which permits sleeping */ > > - if (gfpflags_allow_blocking(gfp)) { > > + /* > > + * CMA can be used only in the context which permits sleeping. > > + * Since addresses within one PAGE are always contiguous, skip > > + * CMA allocation for a single page to save CMA reserved space > > + * unless DMA_ATTR_FORCE_CONTIGUOUS is flagged. > > + */ > > + if (gfpflags_allow_blocking(gfp) && > > + (count > 1 || attrs & DMA_ATTR_FORCE_CONTIGUOUS)) { > > And my other concern is that this skips allocating from the per-device > pool, which drivers might rely on.
Actually Robin had the same concern at v1 and suggested that we could always use DMA_ATTR_FORCE_CONTIGUOUS to enforce into per-device pool.
> To be honest I'm not sure there is > much of a point in the per-device CMA pool vs the traditional per-device > coherent pool, but I'd rather change that behavior in a clearly documented > commit with intentions rather as a side effect from a random optimization.
Hmm..sorry, I don't really follow this suggestion. Is it possible for you to make it clear that what should I do for the change?
Thanks Nicolin
| |