From: "Manfred Spraul" <manfred@colorfullife.com>
To: <zaitcev@redhat.com>
Cc: <linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <david-b@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: SLAB vs. pci_alloc_xxx in usb-uhci patch
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 23:08:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <001f01c0a5c0$e942d8f0$5517fea9@local> (raw)
> And mm/slab.c changes semantics when CONFIG_SLAB_DEBUG
> is set: it ignores SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN. That seems more like
> the root cause of the problem to me!
>
HWCACHE_ALIGN does not guarantee a certain byte alignment. And
additionally it's not even guaranteed that kmalloc() uses that
HWCACHE_ALIGN.
Uhci is broken, not my slab code ;-)
> I think that the pci_alloc_consistent patch that Johannes sent
>by for "uhci.c" would be a better approach. Though I'd like
>to see that be more general ... say, making mm/slab.c know
>about such things. Add a simple abstraction, and that should
>be it -- right? :-)
I looked at it, and there are 2 problems that make it virtually
impossible to integrate kmem_cache_alloc() with pci memory alloc without
a major redesign:
* pci_alloc_consistent returns 2 values, kmem_cache_alloc() only one.
This one would be possible to work around.
* the slab allocator heavily relies on the 'struct page' structure, but
it's not guaranteed that it exists for pci_alloced memory.
I'd switch to pci_alloc_consistent with some optimizations to avoid
wasting a complete page for each DMA header. (I haven't seen Johannes
patch, but we discussed the problem 6 weeks ago and that proposal was
the end of the thread)
--
Manfred
next reply other threads:[~2001-03-05 22:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <3AA91B2C.BEB85D8C@colorfullife.com>
2001-03-05 22:08 ` Manfred Spraul [this message]
2001-03-05 22:52 ` SLAB vs. pci_alloc_xxx in usb-uhci patch David Brownell
2001-03-05 23:20 ` Russell King
2001-03-06 2:09 ` Alan Cox
2001-03-06 2:29 ` [linux-usb-devel] " David Brownell
2001-03-06 4:53 ` David S. Miller
2001-03-09 16:18 ` SLAB vs. pci_alloc_xxx in usb-uhci patch [RFC: API] David Brownell
2001-03-09 18:21 ` David S. Miller
2001-03-09 18:35 ` [linux-usb-devel] " Johannes Erdfelt
2001-03-09 19:42 ` David Brownell
2001-03-09 20:07 ` David S. Miller
2001-03-09 21:14 ` David Brownell
2001-03-09 22:34 ` Pete Zaitcev
2001-03-09 18:35 ` Alan Cox
2001-03-09 18:29 ` David Brownell
2001-03-09 19:14 ` Pete Zaitcev
2001-03-09 19:37 ` David Brownell
2001-03-09 19:04 ` Gérard Roudier
2001-03-09 22:42 ` David Brownell
2001-03-09 21:07 ` Gérard Roudier
2001-03-10 3:11 ` David Brownell
2001-03-09 21:38 ` [linux-usb-devel] " Alan Cox
2001-03-09 20:00 ` David S. Miller
2001-03-09 20:07 ` David S. Miller
2001-03-06 5:44 SLAB vs. pci_alloc_xxx in usb-uhci patch Peter Zaitcev
2001-03-06 23:13 ` David Brownell
2001-03-07 7:05 ` Manfred Spraul
2001-03-07 17:43 ` David Brownell
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-03-05 19:23 Peter Zaitcev
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='001f01c0a5c0$e942d8f0$5517fea9@local' \
--to=manfred@colorfullife.com \
--cc=david-b@pacbell.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=zaitcev@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).