Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/cma: drop incorrect alignment check in cma_init_reserved_mem

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 1:05 PM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 04.04.24 18:25, Frank van der Linden wrote:
> > cma_init_reserved_mem uses IS_ALIGNED to check if the size
> > represented by one bit in the cma allocation bitmask is
> > aligned with CMA_MIN_ALIGNMENT_BYTES (pageblock size).
>
> I recall the important part is that our area always covers full
> pageblocks (CMA_MIN_ALIGNMENT_BYTES), because we cannot have "partial
> CMA" pageblocks.
>
> Internally, allocating from multiple pageblock should just work.
>
> It's late in Germany, hopefully I am not missing something
>
> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> >
> > However, this is too strict, as this will fail if
> > order_per_bit > pageblock_order, which is a valid configuration.
> >
> > We could check IS_ALIGNED both ways, but since both numbers are
> > powers of two, no check is needed at all.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Frank van der Linden <fvdl@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Fixes: de9e14eebf33 ("drivers: dma-contiguous: add initialization from device tree")
>
> Is there are real setup/BUG we are fixing? Why did we not stumble over
> that earlier?
>
> If so, please describe that in the patch description.

Nobody stumbled over it because the only user of CMA that should have
passed in an order_per_bit large enough to trigger this was
hugetlb_cma. However, because of a bug, it didn't :) When I fixed
that, I noticed that this check fired.

- Frank





[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux