From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: Subject: Re: block: DMA alignment of IO buffer allocated from slab To: Andrey Ryabinin , Ming Lei , Vitaly Kuznetsov Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Ming Lei , linux-block , linux-mm , Linux FS Devel , "open list:XFS FILESYSTEM" , Dave Chinner , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Jens Axboe , Christoph Lameter , Linus Torvalds , Greg Kroah-Hartman References: <20180920063129.GB12913@lst.de> <87h8ij0zot.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com> <20180923224206.GA13618@ming.t460p> <38c03920-0fd0-0a39-2a6e-70cd8cb4ef34@virtuozzo.com> From: Bart Van Assche Message-ID: <20a20568-5089-541d-3cee-546e549a0bc8@acm.org> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 07:19:17 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <38c03920-0fd0-0a39-2a6e-70cd8cb4ef34@virtuozzo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed List-ID: On 9/24/18 2:46 AM, Andrey Ryabinin wrote: > On 09/24/2018 01:42 AM, Ming Lei wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 03:04:18PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: >>> Christoph Hellwig writes: >>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 05:15:43PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: >>>>> 1) does kmalloc-N slab guarantee to return N-byte aligned buffer? If >>>>> yes, is it a stable rule? >>>> >>>> This is the assumption in a lot of the kernel, so I think if somethings >>>> breaks this we are in a lot of pain. > > This assumption is not correct. And it's not correct at least from the beginning of the > git era, which is even before SLUB allocator appeared. With CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB=y > the same as with CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG_ON=y kmalloc return 'unaligned' objects. > The guaranteed arch-and-config-independent alignment of kmalloc() result is "sizeof(void*)". > > If objects has higher alignment requirement, the could be allocated via specifically created kmem_cache. Hello Andrey, The above confuses me. Can you explain to me why the following comment is present in include/linux/slab.h? /* * kmalloc and friends return ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN aligned * pointers. kmem_cache_alloc and friends return ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN * aligned pointers. */ Thanks, Bart.