From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Keith Busch <kbusch@meta.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dmapool: push new blocks in ascending order
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 12:41:37 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230223124137.e6fe921659e6f6f1c10668b6@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y/UIZC+plt9Y0nr1@kbusch-mbp>
On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 11:07:32 -0700 Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 10:02:34AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 08:54:00AM -0800, Keith Busch wrote:
> > > From: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
> > >
> > > Some users of the dmapool need their allocations to happen in ascending
> > > order. The recent optimizations pushed the blocks in reverse order, so
> > > restore the previous behavior by linking the next available block from
> > > low-to-high.
> >
> > Who are those users?
> >
> > Also should we document this behavior somewhere so that it isn't
> > accidentally changed again some time in the future?
>
> usb/chipidea/udc.c qh_pool called "ci_hw_qh".
It would be helpful to know why these users need this side-effect. Did
the drivers break? Or just get slower?
Are those drivers misbehaving by assuming this behavior? Should we
require that they be altered instead of forever constraining the dmapool
implementation in this fashion?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-23 20:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-21 16:54 Keith Busch
2023-02-21 17:20 ` Bryan O'Donoghue
2023-02-21 18:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-02-21 18:07 ` Keith Busch
2023-02-23 20:41 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2023-02-24 18:24 ` Keith Busch
2023-02-24 22:28 ` Bryan O'Donoghue
2023-02-26 4:42 ` Andrew Morton
2023-02-27 17:20 ` Keith Busch
2023-02-28 1:25 ` Keith Busch
2023-02-28 2:14 ` Guenter Roeck
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20230223124137.e6fe921659e6f6f1c10668b6@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=kbusch@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox