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;
Date:   Tue, 25 Sep 2018 14:55:18 +0800
From:   Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.com>,
        linux-block <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:XFS FILESYSTEM" <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: block: DMA alignment of IO buffer allocated from slab
Message-ID: <20180925065517.GA4868@ming.t460p>
References: <1537801706.195115.7.camel@acm.org>
 <c844c598-be1d-bef4-fb99-09cf99571fd7@virtuozzo.com>
 <1537804720.195115.9.camel@acm.org>
 <10c706fd-2252-f11b-312e-ae0d97d9a538@virtuozzo.com>
 <1537805984.195115.14.camel@acm.org>
 <20180924185753.GA32269@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <20180925001615.GA14386@ming.t460p>
 <20180925032826.GA4110@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <4a19ac2f-82c1-db55-9b93-4005ace5e2fe@acm.org>
 <20180925044421.GA11163@bombadil.infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180925044421.GA11163@bombadil.infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 09:44:21PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 09:10:43PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On 9/24/18 8:28 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > [ ... ] Because if we have to
> > > round all allocations below 64 bytes up to 64 bytes, [ ... ]
> > Have you noticed that in another e-mail in this thread it has been explained
> > why it is not necessary on x86 to align buffers allocated by kmalloc() on a
> > 64-byte boundary even if these buffers are used for DMA?
> 
> Oh, so drivers which do this only break on !x86.  Yes, that'll work
> out great.

It shouldn't break !x86 because ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN handles that.

Thanks,
Ming