linux-kernel - Re: drm/radeon spamming alloc_contig

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 1 Dec 2016 17:11:17 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>
Cc:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@...too.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: drm/radeon spamming alloc_contig_range: [xxx, yyy) PFNs busy busy

On Thu 01-12-16 17:03:52, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01 2016, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Let's also CC Marek
> >
> > On Thu 01-12-16 08:43:40, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> On 12/01/2016 08:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> > Forgot to CC Joonsoo. The email thread starts more or less here
> >> > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161130092239.GD18437@dhcp22.suse.cz
> >> > 
> >> > On Thu 01-12-16 08:15:07, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> > > On Wed 30-11-16 20:19:03, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> >> > > [...]
> >> > > > alloc_contig_range: [83f2a3, 83f2a4) PFNs busy
> >> > > 
> >> > > Huh, do I get it right that the request was for a _single_ page? Why do
> >> > > we need CMA for that?
> >> 
> >> Ugh, good point. I assumed that was just the PFNs that it failed to migrate
> >> away, but it seems that's indeed the whole requested range. Yeah sounds some
> >> part of the dma-cma chain could be smarter and attempt CMA only for e.g.
> >> costly orders.
> >
> > Is there any reason why the DMA api doesn't try the page allocator first
> > before falling back to the CMA? I simply have a hard time to see why the
> > CMA should be used (and fragment) for small requests size.
> 
> There actually may be reasons to always go with CMA even if small
> regions are requested.  CMA areas may be defined to map to particular
> physical addresses and given device may require allocations from those
> addresses.  This may be more than just a matter of DMA address space.
> I cannot give you specific examples though and I might be talking
> nonsense.

I am not familiar with this code so I cannot really argue but a quick
look at rmem_cma_setup doesn't suggest any speicific placing or
anything...

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs