> > > As we're not moving from the callers freely allocating what they need, > > > to a fixed sized pool of 256kb. Please document why 256kb was choosen, > > > so that we have something to fall back on when someone runs out of this > > > space, or wonders "why not 128kb?". > > > > > > > If you worry about these pools being taken out of the total memory and > > prefer to have a way to avoid it, I was thinking about another > > build-time mode for the allocator - one where there's no pool but it > > just allocates chunks using dma_alloc_coherent() like before and pool > > size is ignored. Does it sound good? > > > > Or we could even have an argument for the initial size of the pool and > then once it's exhausted, we'd add a new chunk (maybe twice the size?) > and so on. Hi Bartosz, Thanks for shmbridge patch series. Few questions. 1. With current design of every client maintaining it's own pool, For any target, we might end up occupying lot more space by different clients than we actually need. 2. Also, there's no option to configure pool size for each client at runtime level and a fixed 256K value is chosen for qcom_scm/qseecom. Pool size will be same for each target and thus making it less scalabale if there's adjustment needed at target specific level. Ex: For a low DDR memory target, pool size should scale down accordingly as 256K will become a big ask but there's no way to choose specific pool size for just one target. 2.1 One way to do configure custom pool size value is to add new property in qcom_scm/qseecom or client DT node and then create pool of size with this provided value. Though there are ways to tackle this, but still clients specifying it's own pool size will always fetch more CMA region than what is actually needed. Can you please share your ideas as well for upcoming version. Regards Kuldeep
