[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070712134606.A10012@jurassic.park.msu.ru>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:46:06 +0400
From: Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>
To: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Cc: Bob Tracy <rct@...rkin.frus.com>,
Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.22-rc6 bad page error
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 06:07:59PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > + gfp &= ~GFP_DMA;
>
> The canonical form for this masking, even on arches without HIGHMEM,
> appears to be:
> gfp &= ~(__GFP_DMA | __GFP_HIGHMEM);
> But I guess that won't make any actual difference.
As far as I can see, none of 64-bit architectures masks the HIGHMEM
(or any other) bits. It's just not obvious because most of their
"alloc_coherent" routines are hidden in iommu_ops or something like that.
> > + return __pci_alloc_consistent(dev, size, dma, GFP_ATOMIC);
>
> I was going to ask you why that needs to be GFP_ATOMIC on Alpha.
> But find you're following the example of asm-generic and others.
> So really should be asking Sparc how it gets away with GFP_KERNEL.
According to DMA-mapping.txt GFP_ATOMIC is mandatory for
pci_alloc_consistent() since it can be called from interrupt context.
So sparc code is probably incorrect...
Ivan.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists