[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84144f020802072348p2f9bda73m52fcc07e272dd68c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 09:48:58 +0200
From: "Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: "Christoph Lameter" <clameter@....com>
Cc: "Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>, "Andi Kleen" <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"Richard Knutsson" <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kmemcheck v3
Hi Christoph,
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> > - DMA can be a problem since there's generally no way for kmemcheck to
> > determine when/if a chunk of memory is used for DMA. Ideally, DMA should be
> > allocated with untracked caches, but this requires annotation of the
> > drivers in question.
On Feb 8, 2008 9:10 AM, Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> wrote:
> There is a fundamental misunderstanding here: GFP_DMA allocations have
> nothing to do with DMA. Rather GFP_DMA means allocate memory in a special
> range of physical memory that is required by legacy devices that cannot
> use the high address bits for one or the other reason. Any regular
> memory can be used for DMA.
No there isn't and we've been over this with Vegard many times :-).
Christoph, can you actually see this in the patch? There shouldn't be
any __GFP_DMA confusion there. What we have is per-object
__GFP_NOTRACK which can be used to suppress false positives for
DMA-filled objects and SLAB_NOTRACK for whole _caches_ that contains
objects which we must not take page faults at all.
--
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