Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 10:22:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>
cc: "Salyzyn, Mark" <mark_salyzyn@adaptec.com>,
       Aubrey Li <aubreylee@gmail.com>, Bernhard Walle <bwalle@suse.de>,
       linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] [scsi] Remove __GFP_DMA
In-Reply-To: <1180026917.3692.47.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705241020040.29126@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
References: <AE4F746F2AECFC4DA4AADD66A1DFEF019E1CAA@otce2k301.adaptec.com> 
 <1180018752.3692.16.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> 
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705240959310.28086@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
 <1180026917.3692.47.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 984
Lines: 21

On Thu, 24 May 2007, James Bottomley wrote:

> The idea was basically to match an allocation to a device mask.  I was
> going to do a generic implementation (which would probably kmalloc,
> check the physaddr and fall back to GFP_DMA if we were unlucky) but
> allow the architectures to override.

Hmmmm... We could actually implement something like it in the slab 
allocators. The mask parameter would lead the allocator to check if the 
objects are in a satisfactory range. If not it could examine its partial 
lists for slabs that satisfy the range. If that does not work then it 
would eventually go to the page allocator to ask for a page in a fitting 
range.

That wont be fast though. How performance sensitive are the allocations?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/