Re: [RFC][PATCH] CMA: drivers/base/Kconfig: restrict CMA size to non-zero value

[Gioh Kim <gioh.kim@lge.com>]

2014-05-20 i??i ? 10:28, Michal Nazarewicz i?' e,?:
> On Mon, May 19 2014, Gioh Kim wrote:
>> If CMA option is not selected, __alloc_from_contiguous would not be
>> called.  We don't need to the fallback allocation.
>>
>> And if CMA option is selected and initialized correctly,
>> the cma allocation can fail in case of no-CMA-memory situation.
>> I thinks in that case we don't need to the fallback allocation also,
>> because it is normal case.
>>
>> Therefore I think the restriction of CMA size option and make CMA work
>> can cover every cases.
>
> Wait, you just wrote that if CMA is not initialised correctly, it's fine
> for atomic pool initialisation to fail, but if CMA size is initialised
> correctly but too small, this is somehow worse situation?  I'm a bit
> confused to be honest.

I'm sorry to confuse you.
Please forgive my poor English.
My point is atomic_pool should be able to work with/without CMA.


>
> IMO, cma=0 command line argument should be supported, as should having
> the default CMA size zero.  If CMA size is set to zero, kernel should
> behave as if CMA was not enabled at compile time.

It's also good if atomic_pool can work well with zero CMA size.

I can give up my patch.
But Joonsoo's patch should be applied.

Joonsoo, can you please send the full patch to maintainers?

>
>
>

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>