lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH v10 3/5] CPM/QE: use genalloc to manage CPM/QE muram
Date
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 1:08 PM +0800, Wood Scott-B07421 wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wood Scott-B07421
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 1:08 PM
> To: Zhao Qiang-B45475
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org;
> lauraa@codeaurora.org; Xie Xiaobo-R63061; benh@kernel.crashing.org; Li
> Yang-Leo-R58472; paulus@samba.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 3/5] CPM/QE: use genalloc to manage CPM/QE muram
>
> On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 21:50 -0500, Zhao Qiang-B45475 wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 7:30 AM +0800, Wood Scott-B07421 wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wood Scott-B07421
> > > Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 7:30 AM
> > > To: Zhao Qiang-B45475
> > > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org;
> > > lauraa@codeaurora.org; Xie Xiaobo-R63061; benh@kernel.crashing.org;
> > > Li Yang-Leo-R58472; paulus@samba.org
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 3/5] CPM/QE: use genalloc to manage CPM/QE
> > > muram
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2015-09-23 at 00:28 -0500, Zhao Qiang-B45475 wrote:
> > > > On Wen, Sep 23, 2015 at 12:03 AM +0800, Wood Scott-B07421 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Wood Scott-B07421
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 12:03 PM
> > > > > To: Zhao Qiang-B45475
> > > > > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org;
> > > > > lauraa@codeaurora.org; Xie Xiaobo-R63061;
> > > > > benh@kernel.crashing.org; Li Yang-Leo-R58472; paulus@samba.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 3/5] CPM/QE: use genalloc to manage
> > > > > CPM/QE muram
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 21:20 -0500, Zhao Qiang-B45475 wrote:
> > > > > > On Wen, Sep 23, 2015 at 8:19 AM +0800, Wood Scott-B07421 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > - int ret;
> > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > + unsigned long start;
> > > > > > > > > > unsigned long flags;
> > > > > > > > > > + unsigned long size_alloc = size; struct muram_block
> > > > > > > > > > + *entry; int end_bit; int order =
> > > > > > > > > > + muram_pool->min_alloc_order;
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > spin_lock_irqsave(&cpm_muram_lock, flags);
> > > > > > > > > > - ret = rh_free(&cpm_muram_info, offset);
> > > > > > > > > > + end_bit = (offset >> order) + ((size + (1UL <<
> > > > > > > > > > + order) -
> > > > > > > > > > + 1)
> > > > > > > > > > + >>
> > > > > > > > > order);
> > > > > > > > > > + if ((offset + size) > (end_bit << order))
> > > > > > > > > > + size_alloc = size + (1UL << order);
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Why do you need to do all these calculations here?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So do it in gen_pool_fixed_alloc?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Could you explain why they're needed at all?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why it does the calculations?
> > > > > > If the min block of gen_pool is 8 bytes, and I want to
> > > > > > allocate a Region with offset=7, size=8bytes, I actually need
> > > > > > block 0 and block 1, And the allocation will give me block 0.
> > > > >
> > > > > How can you have offset 7 if the minimum order is 2 bytes?
> > > >
> > > > Offset has no relationship with minimum order, it is not decided
> > > > by minimum order.
> > >
> > > All allocations begin and end on a multiple of the minimum order.
> >
> > So it is the problem. CPM require to allocate a specific region, who
> > can ensure that the specific is just the begin of minimum order.
>
> Do you have any reason to believe that there is any caller of this
> function with an odd address?
>
> If so, set the minimum order to zero. If not, what is the problem?

Setting minimum order to zero is ok.

-Zhao
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-25 08:01    [W:0.066 / U:2.144 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site