Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: android: ion: Add requested allocation alignment
To:     Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>, sumit.semwal@linaro.org,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, arve@android.com, tkjos@android.com,
        maco@android.com, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Liam Mark <lmark@codeaurora.org>
References: <1518257863-6903-1-git-send-email-alexey.skidanov@intel.com>
 <ae413008-6c8b-5e53-9251-d11f4ae9713a@redhat.com>
 <8284b2ba-a532-23fd-4c52-7ac556d63918@intel.com>
 <ed842c91-4c4c-7dc0-3957-7e2684e24e32@redhat.com>
From:   Alexey Skidanov <alexey.skidanov@intel.com>
Message-ID: <8eb1f6c9-e08d-c6a5-934a-c7e7873d79f2@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Feb 2018 22:22:02 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ed842c91-4c4c-7dc0-3957-7e2684e24e32@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 02/12/2018 09:52 PM, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 02/12/2018 11:11 AM, Alexey Skidanov wrote:
>>
>> On 02/12/2018 08:42 PM, Laura Abbott wrote:
>>> On 02/10/2018 02:17 AM, Alexey Skidanov wrote:
>>>> Current ion defined allocation ioctl doesn't allow to specify the
>>>> requested
>>>> allocation alignment. CMA heap allocates buffers aligned on buffer size
>>>> page order.
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes, the alignment requirement is less restrictive. In such
>>>> cases,
>>>> providing specific alignment may reduce the external memory
>>>> fragmentation
>>>> and in some cases it may avoid the allocation request failure.
>>>>
>>> I really do not want to bring this back as part of the regular
>>> ABI.
>> Yes, I know it was removed in 4.12.
>> Having an alignment parameter that gets used for exactly
>>> one heap only leads to confusion (which is why it was removed
>>> from the ABI in the first place).
>> You are correct regarding the CMA heap. But, probably it may be used by
>> custom heap as well.
> 
> I can think of a lot of instances where it could be used but
> ultimately there needs to be an actual in kernel user who wants
> it.
> 
>>> The alignment came from the behavior of the DMA APIs. Do you
>>> actually need to specify any alignment from userspace or do
>>> you only need page size?
>> Yes. If CMA gives it for free, I would suggest to let the ion user to
>> decide
> 
> I'm really not convinced changing the ABI yet again just to let
> the user decide is actually worth it. If we can manage it, I'd
> much rather see a proposal that doesn't change the ABI.
I didn't actually change the ABI - I just use the "unused" member:
struct ion_allocation_data {
@@ -80,7 +79,7 @@ struct ion_allocation_data {
        __u32 heap_id_mask;
        __u32 flags;
        __u32 fd;
-       __u32 unused;
+       __u32 align;
 };

As an alternative, I may add __u64 heap_specific_param - but this will
change the ABI. But, probably it makes the ABI more generic?
> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Laura
>>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alexey
>>
> 

Thanks,
Alexey