[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210222164834.GL2643399@ziepe.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 12:48:34 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Praveen Kannoju <praveen.kannoju@...cle.com>
Cc: "leon@...nel.org" <leon@...nel.org>,
"dledford@...hat.com" <dledford@...hat.com>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rama Nichanamatlu <rama.nichanamatlu@...cle.com>,
Rajesh Sivaramasubramaniom
<rajesh.sivaramasubramaniom@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] IB/mlx5: Reduce max order of memory allocated for
xlt update
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 04:26:23PM +0000, Praveen Kannoju wrote:
> Ping!
Your original message didn't make it to the mailing list or
patchworks, you will need to fix your mailing environment and resend
it.
> - /*
> - * If the system already has a suitable high order page then just use
> - * that, but don't try hard to create one. This max is about 1M, so a
> - * free x86 huge page will satisfy it.
> - */
> size = min_t(size_t, ent_size * ALIGN(*nents, xlt_chunk_align),
> - MLX5_MAX_UMR_CHUNK);
> + MLX5_SPARE_UMR_CHUNK);
> *nents = size / ent_size;
> res = (void *)__get_free_pages(gfp_mask | __GFP_NOWARN,
> get_order(size));
IIRC, there is some GFP flag here that fails fast if the order is not
available, why not just use that?
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists