From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Catalin Marinas Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] arm64: Add atomic pool for non-coherent and CMA allocaitons. Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 10:27:26 +0100 Message-ID: <20140609092725.GB25590@arm.com> References: <1401739432-5358-1-git-send-email-lauraa@codeaurora.org> <20140605170500.GC27946@arm.com> <539262FA.8010301@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <539262FA.8010301@codeaurora.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Laura Abbott Cc: David Riley , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Will Deacon , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Ritesh Harjani List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 01:55:22AM +0100, Laura Abbott wrote: > On 6/5/2014 10:05 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 09:03:52PM +0100, Laura Abbott wrote: > >> Neither CMA nor noncoherent allocations support atomic allocations. > >> Add a dedicated atomic pool to support this. > > > > CMA indeed doesn't support atomic allocations but swiotlb does, the only > > problem being the vmap() to create a non-cacheable mapping. Could we not > > use the atomic pool only for non-coherent allocations? > > CMA needs the atomic pool for both non-coherent and coherent allocations. > Perhaps I should update the code so we only create the coherent atomic > pool if CMA is used. It's also needed with non-coherent swiotlb because of vmap (but coherent is fine). -- Catalin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 10:27:26 +0100 Subject: [PATCHv2] arm64: Add atomic pool for non-coherent and CMA allocaitons. In-Reply-To: <539262FA.8010301@codeaurora.org> References: <1401739432-5358-1-git-send-email-lauraa@codeaurora.org> <20140605170500.GC27946@arm.com> <539262FA.8010301@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <20140609092725.GB25590@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 01:55:22AM +0100, Laura Abbott wrote: > On 6/5/2014 10:05 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 09:03:52PM +0100, Laura Abbott wrote: > >> Neither CMA nor noncoherent allocations support atomic allocations. > >> Add a dedicated atomic pool to support this. > > > > CMA indeed doesn't support atomic allocations but swiotlb does, the only > > problem being the vmap() to create a non-cacheable mapping. Could we not > > use the atomic pool only for non-coherent allocations? > > CMA needs the atomic pool for both non-coherent and coherent allocations. > Perhaps I should update the code so we only create the coherent atomic > pool if CMA is used. It's also needed with non-coherent swiotlb because of vmap (but coherent is fine). -- Catalin