Hello,
On Wednesday, January 12, 2011 8:04 PM Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>
> > I understand that modifying L1 page tables is definitely not a proper way of
> > handling this. It simply costs too much. But what if we consider that the
> > DMA
> > memory c
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> I understand that modifying L1 page tables is definitely not a proper way of
> handling this. It simply costs too much. But what if we consider that the DMA
> memory can be only allocated from a specific range of the system memory?
> Assuming that thi
Hello,
I'm sorry for the delay. Just got back from my holidays and getting thought
the mails.
On Thursday, December 23, 2010 2:45 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 02:09:44PM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Thursday, December 23, 2010 1:19 PM Russe
Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> I'll give you another solution to the problem - lobby ARM Ltd to have
> this restriction lifted from the architecture specification, which
> will probably result in the speculative prefetching also having to be
> removed.
I don't know if there was lobbying involve
gmin Park; Mel Gorman; KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki;
> Michal Nazarewicz; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; Michal Nazarewicz;
> linux...@kvack.org; Ankita Garg; Andrew Morton; Marek Szyprowski;
> linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org; linux-media@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCHv8 00/12] Contiguous Me
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 05:23:37PM +0100, Johan MOSSBERG wrote:
> Russell King wrote:
> > Has anyone addressed my issue with it that this is wide-open for
> > abuse by allocating large chunks of memory, and then remapping
> > them in some way with different attributes, thereby violating the
> > ARM
Russell King wrote:
> Has anyone addressed my issue with it that this is wide-open for
> abuse by allocating large chunks of memory, and then remapping
> them in some way with different attributes, thereby violating the
> ARM architecture specification?
I seem to have missed the previous discussio
> Russell King wrote:
>> Has anyone addressed my issue with it that this is wide-open for
>> abuse by allocating large chunks of memory, and then remapping
>> them in some way with different attributes, thereby violating the
>> ARM architecture specification?
2011/1/4 Johan MOSSBERG :
> Where in t
Felipe Contreras writes:
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> A generic solution (that I think I already proposed) would be to
> reserve a chunk of memory for the CMA that can be removed from the
> normally mapped kernel memory through memblock at boot time. The size
> o
On 2010-12-23 15:20, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 03:08:21PM +0100, Tomasz Fujak wrote:
>> On 2010-12-23 14:51, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 02:41:26PM +0100, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
Russell King - ARM Linux writes:
> Has anyone
>> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 03:04:07PM +0100, Tomasz Fujak wrote:
>>> In other words, should we take your response as yet another NAK?
>>> Or would you try harder and at least point us to some direction that
>>> would not doom the effort from the very beginning.
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 4:16 PM, R
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 03:04:07PM +0100, Tomasz Fujak wrote:
>> In other words, should we take your response as yet another NAK?
>> Or would you try harder and at least point us to some direction that
>> would not doom the effort
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 03:08:21PM +0100, Tomasz Fujak wrote:
> On 2010-12-23 14:51, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 02:41:26PM +0100, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
> >> Russell King - ARM Linux writes:
> >>> Has anyone addressed my issue with it that this is wide-open for
>
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 03:04:07PM +0100, Tomasz Fujak wrote:
> On 2010-12-23 14:48, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 02:35:00PM +0100, Tomasz Fujak wrote:
> >> Dear Mr. King,
> >>
> >> AFAIK the CMA is the fourth attempt since 2008 taken to solve the
> >> multimedia memo
On 2010-12-23 14:51, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 02:41:26PM +0100, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
>> Russell King - ARM Linux writes:
>>> Has anyone addressed my issue with it that this is wide-open for
>>> abuse by allocating large chunks of memory, and then remapping
>>>
On 2010-12-23 14:48, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 02:35:00PM +0100, Tomasz Fujak wrote:
>> Dear Mr. King,
>>
>> AFAIK the CMA is the fourth attempt since 2008 taken to solve the
>> multimedia memory allocation issue on some embedded devices. Most
>> notably on ARM, that
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 02:41:26PM +0100, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
> Russell King - ARM Linux writes:
> > Has anyone addressed my issue with it that this is wide-open for
> > abuse by allocating large chunks of memory, and then remapping
> > them in some way with different attributes, thereby viol
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 02:35:00PM +0100, Tomasz Fujak wrote:
> Dear Mr. King,
>
> AFAIK the CMA is the fourth attempt since 2008 taken to solve the
> multimedia memory allocation issue on some embedded devices. Most
> notably on ARM, that happens to be present in the SoCs we care about
> along th
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 02:09:44PM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thursday, December 23, 2010 1:19 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 11:58:08AM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> > > Actually this contiguous memory allocator is a better replacement for
Russell King - ARM Linux writes:
> Has anyone addressed my issue with it that this is wide-open for
> abuse by allocating large chunks of memory, and then remapping
> them in some way with different attributes, thereby violating the
> ARM architecture specification?
>
> In other words, do we _actu
Dear Mr. King,
AFAIK the CMA is the fourth attempt since 2008 taken to solve the
multimedia memory allocation issue on some embedded devices. Most
notably on ARM, that happens to be present in the SoCs we care about
along the IOMMU-incapable multimedia IPs.
I understand that you have your guideli
Hello,
On Thursday, December 23, 2010 1:19 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 11:58:08AM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> > Actually this contiguous memory allocator is a better replacement for
> > alloc_pages() which is used by dma_alloc_coherent(). It is a generic
> >
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 11:58:08AM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> Actually this contiguous memory allocator is a better replacement for
> alloc_pages() which is used by dma_alloc_coherent(). It is a generic
> framework that is not tied only to ARM architecture.
... which is open to abuse. What
Hello,
On Thursday, December 23, 2010 11:07 AM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 06:30:57PM +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote:
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > any comments? what's the next step to merge it for 2.6.38 kernel. we
> > want to use this feature at mainline kernel.
>
> Has any
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 06:30:57PM +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> any comments? what's the next step to merge it for 2.6.38 kernel. we
> want to use this feature at mainline kernel.
Has anyone addressed my issue with it that this is wide-open for
abuse by allocating large chunks of
Hi Andrew,
any comments? what's the next step to merge it for 2.6.38 kernel. we
want to use this feature at mainline kernel.
Any idea and comments are welcome.
Thank you,
Kyungmin Park
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 5:34 AM, Michal Nazarewicz
wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> This is yet another version o
26 matches
Mail list logo
