On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 08:20:08PM +0100, Micha?? Nazarewicz wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:09:55AM +0100, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
> >> "Static" buffers in fsg_buffhd structure (ie. fields which are arrays
> >> rather then pointers to dynamically allocated memory) are not aligned
> >> to any "big" power of two which may lead to poor DMA performance
>
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:10:21 +0100, Felipe Balbi <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > not so true as you can add __attribute__ ((aligned(32))) to those.
>
> I admit, I haven't thought about that. Some fields rearrangement
> could help avoid some padding but yes, it can be done.
>
> However, there is one more thing I've had in mind. Each buffer
> is 4 pages (16 KiB) and there are two such buffers in struct
> fsg_common therefore the whole size of the structure is
> 9 pages (> 32 KiB).
>
> I've been simply concerned about using kamlloc() for such big
> structures so in the end decided to split it into 3 allocations.
>
> Maybe I'm overeating though? Or maybe vmalloc() would solve those
> problems? But then again, vmalloc() could degrade DMA performance
> on systems w/o scatter-gather.
>
> What do you think?
I have no opinion anymore :-p
I can only think about the devices I've been working on which would be a
pain to allocate so much memory and would suffer if you use vmalloc()
too, so both would be a no-no for me :-p
> bh = common->buffhds;
> rc = -ENOMEM;
> i = FSG_NUM_BUFFERS;
> for(;;) {
> bh->buf = kmalloc(FSG_BUFLEN, GFP_KERNEL);
> if (unlikely(!bh->buf))
> goto error_release;
> if (!--i)
> break;
> bh->next = bh + 1;
> ++bh;
> }
> bh->next = common->buffhds;
>
> What do you think?
how about ?
for (i = FSG_NUM_BUFFER; i; i--, ++bh) {
bh->buf = kmalloc(FSG_BUFLEN, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!bh->buf)
goto error_release;
}
--
balbi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
