On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 2:55 PM Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 11:48:15AM -0800, John Stultz wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 9:51 AM Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for reworking and resending this!
> >
> > ...
> > > +static int __init chunk_heap_init(void)
> > > +{
> > > + struct cma *default_cma = dev_get_cma_area(NULL);
> > > + struct dma_heap_export_info exp_info;
> > > + struct chunk_heap *chunk_heap;
> > > +
> > > + if (!default_cma)
> > > + return 0;
> > > +
> > > + chunk_heap = kzalloc(sizeof(*chunk_heap), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > + if (!chunk_heap)
> > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > +
> > > + chunk_heap->order = CHUNK_HEAP_ORDER;
> > > + chunk_heap->cma = default_cma;
> > > +
> > > + exp_info.name = cma_get_name(default_cma);
> >
> > So, this would create a chunk heap name with the default CMA name,
> > which would be indistinguishable from the heap name used for the plain
> > CMA heap.
> >
> > Probably a good idea to prefix it with "chunk-" so the heap device
> > names are unique?
>
> That will give an impression to user that they are using different CMA
> area but that's not true. IMHO, let's be honest at this moment.
I disagree. The dmabuf heaps provide an abstraction for allocating a
type of memory, and while your heap is pulling from CMA, you aren't
"just" allocating CMA as the existing CMA heap would suffice for that.
Since you need a slightly different method to allocate high order
pages in bulk, we really should have a unique way to name the
allocator interface. That's why I'd suggest the "chunk-" prefix to the
heap name.
thanks
-john
