[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180503121322.GA14864@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 05:13:22 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy6545@...il.com>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
cl@...ux.com, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, matthew@....cx,
x86@...nel.org, luto@...capital.net, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
jthumshirn@...e.de, broonie@...nel.org,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"lsf-pc@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<lsf-pc@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC NOTES] x86 ZONE_DMA love
On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 02:03:38PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sat 28-04-18 19:10:47, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Another way we could approach this is to get rid of ZONE_DMA. Make GFP_DMA
> > a flag which doesn't map to a zone. Rather, it redirects to a separate
> > allocator. At boot, we hand all memory under 16MB to the DMA allocator. The
> > DMA allocator can have a shrinker which just hands back all the memory once
> > we're under memory pressure (if it's never had an allocation).
>
> Yeah, that was exactly the plan with the CMA allocator... We wouldn't
> need the shrinker because who cares about 16MB which is not usable
> anyway.
The CMA pool sounds fine. But please kill GFP_DMA off first / at the
same time. 95% of the users are either completely bogus or should be
using the DMA API, and the few other can use the new allocator directly.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists