[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1211657898.25661.2.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 21:38:18 +0200
From: Miquel van Smoorenburg <miquels@...tron.nl>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Glauber Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, andi-suse@...stfloor.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.26: x86/kernel/pci_dma.c: gfp |= __GFP_NORETRY ?
On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 21:25 +0200, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> Most drivers call pci_alloc_consistent() which calls
> dma_alloc_coherent(.... GFP_ATOMIC) which can dip deep into reserves so
> it won't fail so easily. Just a handful use dma_alloc_coherent()
> directly.
>
> However, in 2.6.26-rc1, dpt_i2o.c was updated for 64 bit support, and
> all it's kmalloc(.... GFP_KERNEL) + virt_to_bus() calls have been
> replaced by dma_alloc_coherent(.... GFP_KERNEL).
>
> In that case, it's not a very good idea to add __GFP_NORETRY.
>
> I think we should do something. How about one of these two patches.
And Andi wrote:
On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 00:59 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Anyways the reasoning is still valid. Longer term the mask allocator
> would be the right fix, shorter term a new GFP flag as proposed
> sounds reasonable.
So how about linux-2.6.26-gfp-no-oom.patch (see previous mail) for
2.6.26 ?
Mike.
--
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