[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ba310210-6f3c-f4e6-29e5-5ae6e791ebeb@daenzer.net>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 18:59:42 +0200
From: Michel Dänzer <michel@...nzer.net>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] swiotlb: Fix inversed DMA_ATTR_NO_WARN test
On 2018-05-02 06:21 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 04:31:09PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>>> 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).
>
> Well, that is exactly what I don't want drivers to do - same for
> __GFP_COMP in some drm code. This very much assumes the page allocator
> is used to back dma allocations, which very often it actually isn't, and
> any use of magic gfp flags creates a tight coupling of consumers with a
> specific implementation.
>
> In general I can't think of a good reason not to actually use
> GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT by default in the dma allocator unless
> DMA_ATTR_ALLOC_SINGLE_PAGES is set. Can you prepare a patch for that?
I'm afraid I'll have to leave that to somebody else.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists