[PATCH/RFCv3 0/6] The Contiguous Memory Allocator framework
FUJITA Tomonori
fujita.tomonori at lab.ntt.co.jp
Fri Aug 20 06:35:01 EDT 2010
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:10:45 +0200
**UNKNOWN CHARSET** <m.nazarewicz at samsung.com> wrote:
> > I wrote "similar to the existing API', not "reuse the existing API".
>
> Yes, but I don't really know what you have in mind. CMA is similar to various
> APIs in various ways: it's similar to any allocator since it takes
> size in bytes,
why don't take gfp_t flags?
Something like dev_alloc_page is more appropriate name?
Or something similar to dmapool API (mm/dmapool.c) might work
better. The purpose of dmapool API is creating a pool for consistent
memory per device. It's similar to yours, creating a pool for
contiguous memory per device(s)?
> it's similar to coherent since it takes device, it's similar to bootmem/memblock/etc
> since it takes alignment.
I don't think that bootmem/memblock matters here since it's not the
API for drivers.
> > 4k to 40k? I'm not sure. But If I see something like the following, I
> > suspect that there is a better way to integrate this into the existing
> > infrastructure.
> >
> > mm/cma-best-fit.c | 407 +++++++++++++++
>
> Ah, sorry. I misunderstood you. I thought you were replying to both 2. and 3.
> above.
>
> If we only take allocating algorithm then you're right. Reusing existing one
> should not increase the patch size plus it would be probably a better solution.
>
> No matter, I would rather first work and core CMA without worrying about reusing
> kmalloc()/coherent/etc. code especially since providing a plugable allocator API
> integration with existing allocating algorithms can be made later on. To put it
> short I want first to make it work and then improve it.
I'm not sure that's how a new feature is merged.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list