[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <012401cd80f4$59727020$0c575060$%szyprowski@samsung.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 07:58:34 +0200
From: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
To: 'Hiroshi Doyu' <hdoyu@...dia.com>, pullip.cho@...sung.com
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kyungmin.park@...sung.com,
arnd@...db.de, linux@....linux.org.uk, chunsang.jeong@...aro.org,
'Krishna Reddy' <vdumpa@...dia.com>, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
subashrp@...il.com, minchan@...nel.org
Subject: RE: [RFC 2/4] ARM: dma-mapping: IOMMU allocates pages from pool with
GFP_ATOMIC
Hello,
On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 3:37 PM Hiroshi Doyu wrote:
> KyongHo Cho <pullip.cho@...sung.com> wrote @ Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:47:00 +0200:
>
> > vzalloc() call in __iommu_alloc_buffer() also causes BUG() in atomic context.
>
> Right.
>
> I've been thinking that kzalloc() may be enough here, since
> vzalloc() was introduced to avoid allocation failure for big chunk of
> memory, but I think that it's unlikely that the number of page array
> can be so big. So I propose to drop vzalloc() here, and just simply to
> use kzalloc only as below(*1).
We already had a discussion about this, so I don't think it makes much sense to
change it back to kzalloc. This vmalloc() call won't hurt anyone. It should not
be considered a problem for atomic allocations, because no sane driver will try
to allocate buffers larger than a dozen KiB with GFP_ATOMIC flag. I would call
such try a serious bug, which we should not care here.
Best regards
--
Marek Szyprowski
Samsung Poland R&D Center
--
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