On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 12:45 AM Hyesoo Yu <hyesoo.yu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > These patch series to introduce a new dma heap, chunk heap. > That heap is needed for special HW that requires bulk allocation of > fixed high order pages. For example, 64MB dma-buf pages are made up > to fixed order-4 pages * 1024. > > The chunk heap uses alloc_pages_bulk to allocate high order page. > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20200814173131.2803002-1-minchan@xxxxxxxxxx > > The chunk heap is registered by device tree with alignment and memory node > of contiguous memory allocator(CMA). Alignment defines chunk page size. > For example, alignment 0x1_0000 means chunk page size is 64KB. > The phandle to memory node indicates contiguous memory allocator(CMA). > If device node doesn't have cma, the registration of chunk heap fails. > > The patchset includes the following: > - export dma-heap API to register kernel module dma heap. > - add chunk heap implementation. > - document of device tree to register chunk heap > > Hyesoo Yu (3): > dma-buf: add missing EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() for dma heaps > dma-buf: heaps: add chunk heap to dmabuf heaps > dma-heap: Devicetree binding for chunk heap Hey! Thanks so much for sending this out! I'm really excited to see these heaps be submitted and reviewed on the list! The first general concern I have with your series is that it adds a dt binding for the chunk heap, which we've gotten a fair amount of pushback on. A possible alternative might be something like what Kunihiko Hayashi proposed for non-default CMA heaps: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1594948208-4739-1-git-send-email-hayashi.kunihiko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ This approach would insteal allow a driver to register a CMA area with the chunk heap implementation. However, (and this was the catch Kunihiko Hayashi's patch) this requires that the driver also be upstream, as we need an in-tree user of such code. Also, it might be good to provide some further rationale on why this heap is beneficial over the existing CMA heap? In general focusing the commit messages more on the why we might want the patch, rather than what the patch does, is helpful. "Special hardware" that doesn't have upstream drivers isn't very compelling for most maintainers. That said, I'm very excited to see these sorts of submissions, as I know lots of vendors have historically had very custom out of tree ION heaps, and I think it would be a great benefit to the community to better understand the experience vendors have in optimizing performance on their devices, so we can create good common solutions upstream. So I look forward to your insights on future revisions of this patch series! thanks -john
