Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 26 Jul 2019 12:22:35 -0700 | From | Nicolin Chen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] dma-contiguous: do not overwrite align in dma_alloc_contiguous() |
| |
On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 08:28:49AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 04:39:58PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote: > > The dma_alloc_contiguous() limits align at CONFIG_CMA_ALIGNMENT for > > cma_alloc() however it does not restore it for the fallback routine. > > This will result in a size mismatch between the allocation and free > > when running in the fallback routines, if the align is larger than > > CONFIG_CMA_ALIGNMENT. > > > > This patch adds a cma_align to take care of cma_alloc() and prevent > > the align from being overwritten. > > > > Fixes: fdaeec198ada ("dma-contiguous: add dma_{alloc,free}_contiguous() helpers") > > Reported-by: Dafna Hirschfeld <dafna.hirschfeld@collabora.com> > > Signed-off-by: Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@gmail.com> > > --- > > kernel/dma/contiguous.c | 9 +++++---- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/dma/contiguous.c b/kernel/dma/contiguous.c > > index bfc0c17f2a3d..fa8cd0f0512e 100644 > > --- a/kernel/dma/contiguous.c > > +++ b/kernel/dma/contiguous.c > > @@ -233,6 +233,7 @@ struct page *dma_alloc_contiguous(struct device *dev, size_t size, gfp_t gfp) > > int node = dev ? dev_to_node(dev) : NUMA_NO_NODE; > > size_t count = PAGE_ALIGN(size) >> PAGE_SHIFT; > > size_t align = get_order(PAGE_ALIGN(size)); > > + size_t cma_align = CONFIG_CMA_ALIGNMENT; > > struct page *page = NULL; > > struct cma *cma = NULL; > > > > @@ -241,11 +242,11 @@ struct page *dma_alloc_contiguous(struct device *dev, size_t size, gfp_t gfp) > > else if (count > 1) > > cma = dma_contiguous_default_area; > > > > + cma_align = min_t(size_t, align, cma_align); > > + > > /* CMA can be used only in the context which permits sleeping */ > > - if (cma && gfpflags_allow_blocking(gfp)) { > > - align = min_t(size_t, align, CONFIG_CMA_ALIGNMENT); > > - page = cma_alloc(cma, count, align, gfp & __GFP_NOWARN); > > - } > > + if (cma && gfpflags_allow_blocking(gfp)) > > + page = cma_alloc(cma, count, cma_align, gfp & __GFP_NOWARN); > > Shouldn't cma_align be confined to the block guarded by > "if (cma && gfpflags_allow_blocking(gfp))" so that we can optimize it > away for configurations that do not support CMA?
Had my local 1st version doing just like that but then wanted to simplify the statement within that if-condition so redid in this way. Will change it back as you suggested. Thanks
|  |