All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: GFP_ATOMIC versus GFP_NOWAIT
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:17:36 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87k4xuu6kv.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e9c3a7c20911121728n647ab121l7f7c5827afdac887@mail.gmail.com> (Dan Williams's message of "Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:28:18 -0700")

Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> writes:

> Looking through the tree it seems that almost all drivers that need to
> allocate memory in atomic contexts use GFP_ATOMIC.  I have been asking
> dmaengine device driver authors to switch their atomic allocations to
> GFP_NOWAIT.  The rationale being that in most cases a dma device is
> either offloading an operation that will automatically fallback to
> software when the descriptor allocation fails, or we can simply poll
> and wait for the dma device to release some in use descriptors.  So it
> does not make sense to grab from the emergency pools when the result
> of an allocation failure is some additional cpu overhead.  Am I
> correct in my nagging, and should this idea be spread outside of
> drivers/dma/ to cut down on GFP_ATOMIC usage, or is this not a big
> issue?

It's probably hard to find a good global priority order between
the various allocators, depending on how much the fallback costs. 
But in principle it sounds like a good idea.

-Andi

-- 
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: GFP_ATOMIC versus GFP_NOWAIT
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:17:36 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87k4xuu6kv.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e9c3a7c20911121728n647ab121l7f7c5827afdac887@mail.gmail.com> (Dan Williams's message of "Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:28:18 -0700")

Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> writes:

> Looking through the tree it seems that almost all drivers that need to
> allocate memory in atomic contexts use GFP_ATOMIC.  I have been asking
> dmaengine device driver authors to switch their atomic allocations to
> GFP_NOWAIT.  The rationale being that in most cases a dma device is
> either offloading an operation that will automatically fallback to
> software when the descriptor allocation fails, or we can simply poll
> and wait for the dma device to release some in use descriptors.  So it
> does not make sense to grab from the emergency pools when the result
> of an allocation failure is some additional cpu overhead.  Am I
> correct in my nagging, and should this idea be spread outside of
> drivers/dma/ to cut down on GFP_ATOMIC usage, or is this not a big
> issue?

It's probably hard to find a good global priority order between
the various allocators, depending on how much the fallback costs. 
But in principle it sounds like a good idea.

-Andi

-- 
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.

--
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:[~2009-11-13  9:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-11-13  1:28 GFP_ATOMIC versus GFP_NOWAIT Dan Williams
2009-11-13  1:28 ` Dan Williams
2009-11-13  9:17 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2009-11-13  9:17   ` 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=87k4xuu6kv.fsf@basil.nowhere.org \
    --to=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.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.