All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Miquel van Smoorenburg <miquels@cistron.nl>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Glauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	andi-suse@firstfloor.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.26: x86/kernel/pci_dma.c: gfp |= __GFP_NORETRY ?
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 21:38:18 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1211657898.25661.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1211484343.30678.15.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 21:25 +0200, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> Most drivers call pci_alloc_consistent() which calls
> dma_alloc_coherent(.... GFP_ATOMIC) which can dip deep into reserves so
> it won't fail so easily. Just a handful use dma_alloc_coherent()
> directly.
> 
> However, in 2.6.26-rc1, dpt_i2o.c was updated for 64 bit support, and
> all it's kmalloc(.... GFP_KERNEL) + virt_to_bus() calls have been
> replaced by dma_alloc_coherent(.... GFP_KERNEL).
> 
> In that case, it's not a very good idea to add __GFP_NORETRY.
>
> I think we should do something. How about one of these two patches.

And Andi wrote:

On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 00:59 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Anyways the reasoning is still valid. Longer term the mask allocator
> would be the right fix, shorter term a new GFP flag as proposed 
> sounds reasonable.

So how about linux-2.6.26-gfp-no-oom.patch (see previous mail) for
2.6.26 ?

Mike.


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Miquel van Smoorenburg <miquels@cistron.nl>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Glauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	andi-suse@firstfloor.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.26: x86/kernel/pci_dma.c: gfp |= __GFP_NORETRY ?
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 21:38:18 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1211657898.25661.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1211484343.30678.15.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 21:25 +0200, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> Most drivers call pci_alloc_consistent() which calls
> dma_alloc_coherent(.... GFP_ATOMIC) which can dip deep into reserves so
> it won't fail so easily. Just a handful use dma_alloc_coherent()
> directly.
> 
> However, in 2.6.26-rc1, dpt_i2o.c was updated for 64 bit support, and
> all it's kmalloc(.... GFP_KERNEL) + virt_to_bus() calls have been
> replaced by dma_alloc_coherent(.... GFP_KERNEL).
> 
> In that case, it's not a very good idea to add __GFP_NORETRY.
>
> I think we should do something. How about one of these two patches.

And Andi wrote:

On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 00:59 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Anyways the reasoning is still valid. Longer term the mask allocator
> would be the right fix, shorter term a new GFP flag as proposed 
> sounds reasonable.

So how about linux-2.6.26-gfp-no-oom.patch (see previous mail) for
2.6.26 ?

Mike.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2008-05-24 19:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-05-21 11:30 2.6.26: x86/kernel/pci_dma.c: gfp |= __GFP_NORETRY ? Miquel van Smoorenburg
2008-05-21 11:30 ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2008-05-21 12:49 ` Glauber Costa
2008-05-21 12:49   ` Glauber Costa
2008-05-22  8:47   ` Andi Kleen
2008-05-22  8:47     ` Andi Kleen
2008-05-22 19:25     ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2008-05-22 19:25       ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2008-05-24 19:38       ` Miquel van Smoorenburg [this message]
2008-05-24 19:38         ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2008-05-25 16:35         ` Andi Kleen
2008-05-25 16:35           ` Andi Kleen
2008-05-25 19:55           ` Alan Cox
2008-05-25 19:55             ` Alan Cox
2008-05-25 21:23             ` Andi Kleen
2008-05-25 21:23               ` Andi Kleen
2008-05-25 22:02               ` Alan Cox
2008-05-25 22:02                 ` Alan Cox
2008-05-22 19:58     ` Thomas Gleixner
2008-05-22 19:58       ` Thomas Gleixner
2008-05-22 22:59       ` Andi Kleen
2008-05-22 22:59         ` Andi Kleen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1211657898.25661.2.camel@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=miquels@cistron.nl \
    --cc=andi-suse@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=gcosta@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.