[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161201141125.GB20966@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 15:11:25 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@...too.org>,
Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
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
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.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists