[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1066dfa2-2f78-815d-c65a-9d09eb35458c@daenzer.net>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 16:31:09 +0200
From: Michel Dänzer <michel@...nzer.net>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] swiotlb: Fix inversed DMA_ATTR_NO_WARN test
On 2018-05-02 02:41 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 02:18:56PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> Other dma-api backends like cma just shut up when __GFP_NOWARN is
>> passed. And afaiui Christoph Hellwig has plans to nuke the DMA_ATTR
>> stuff (or at least clean it up) - should we just remove
>> DMA_ATTR_NO_WARN and instead only look at __GFP_NOWARN?
>
> No. __GFP_NOWARN (and gfp_t flags in general) are the wrong interface
> for dma allocations and just cause problems. I actually plan to
> get rid of the gfp_t argument in dma_alloc_attrs sooner, and only
> allow either GFP_KERNEL or GFP_DMA passed in dma_alloc_coherent.
How about GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT? TTM uses that to opportunistically
allocate huge pages (GFP_TRANSHUGE can result in unacceptably long
delays with memory pressure).
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists