On Sun, 2006-07-02 at 08:18 +0300, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> On Sunday 02 July 2006 06:54, Rune Torgersen wrote:
> > From: Pantelis Antoniou
> > Sent: Sat 7/1/2006 9:50 AM
> > >Since genalloc is the blessed linux thing it might be best to use that & remove
> > >rheap completely. Oh well...
> >
> > Two problems with genalloc that I can see (for CPM programming):
> > 1) (minor) Does not have a way to specify alignment (genalloc does it for you)
> > 2) (major problerm, at least for me) Does not have a way to allocate a specified address in the pool.
> >
> > 2 is needed esp when programming MCC drivers, since a lot of the datastructures must be in DP RAM _and_ be in a specific spot. And if you cannot tell the allocator that I am using a specific address, then the allocator might very well give somebody else that portion of RAM. The only solution without a fixed allocator is to allocate ALL memory in the DP RAM and use your own allocator.
> >
>
> Yeah, that too.
>
> Too bad there are no main tree drivers like that, but they do exist.
>
> One could conceivably hack genalloc to do that, but will end up with
> something complex too.
>
> BTW, there are other uEngine based architectures with similar alignment
> requirements.
>
> So in conclusion, for the in-tree drivers genalloc is sufficient as an cpm memory allocator.
> For some out of tree drivers, it is not.
Sounds like a good enough justification to keep rheap for now then.
Ben.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
