[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87plwwiz6z.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 09:35:32 +0100
From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To: Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Cc: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
Sven van Ashbrook <svenva@...omium.org>,
Karthikeyan Ramasubramanian <kramasub@...omium.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Brian Geffon <bgeffon@...gle.com>,
linux-sound@...r.kernel.org,
Kai Vehmanen <kai.vehmanen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] ALSA: memalloc: Fix indefinite hang in non-iommu case
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 05:34:24 +0100,
Hillf Danton wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 18:03:01 +0100 Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de> wrote:
> >
> > So it sounds like that we should go back for __GFP_NORETRY in general
> > for non-zero order allocations, not only the call you changed, as
> > __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL doesn't guarantee the stuck.
> >
> > How about the changes like below?
> >
> > +/* default GFP bits for our allocations */
> > +static gfp_t default_gfp(size_t size)
> > +{
> > + /* don't allocate intensively for high-order pages */
> > + if (size > PAGE_SIZE)
> > + return GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NORETRY;
> > + else
> > + return GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL;
> > +}
>
> Looks like an overdose because both __GFP_NORETRY and __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL
> are checked in __alloc_pages_slowpath().
If the check there worked as expected, this shouldn't have been a
problem, no?
The fact that we have to drop __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL indicates that the
handling there doesn't suffice -- at least for the audio operation.
thanks,
Takashi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists