[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <15be97c9-b287-4376-9fc1-9d574cb23d82@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2025 09:49:07 -0600
From: Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
Cc: iommu@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma/pool: eliminate alloc_pages warning in
atomic_pool_expand
On 12/2/25 9:47AM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2025-12-02 3:28 pm, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
>> atomic_pool_expand iterately tries the allocation while decrementing the
>
> "iteratively"?
Oops.
>
>> page order. There is no need to issue a warning if an attempted
>> allocation fails.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/dma/pool.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/dma/pool.c b/kernel/dma/pool.c
>> index ee45dee33d49..26392badc36b 100644
>> --- a/kernel/dma/pool.c
>> +++ b/kernel/dma/pool.c
>> @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ static int atomic_pool_expand(struct gen_pool *pool,
>> size_t pool_size,
>> page = dma_alloc_from_contiguous(NULL, 1 << order,
>> order, false);
>> if (!page)
>> - page = alloc_pages(gfp, order);
>> + page = alloc_pages(gfp | __GFP_NOWARN, order);
>
> Might be nice to keep some kind of warning if we entirely fail all the
> way down to order 0, although I guess if it matters it would show up via
> the warning on dma_alloc_from_pool() failure soon enough anyway...
>
> Either way it certainly makes sense in general;
>
> Reviewed-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Thanks
>
>> } while (!page && order-- > 0);
>> if (!page)
>> goto out;
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists