Re: [PATCH v2] mm: dmapool: use provided gfp flags for all dma_alloc_coherent() calls

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:08:52 +0100 Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> On 11/20/2012 8:33 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 15:31:45 +0100
> > Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com> wrote:
> >
> > > dmapool always calls dma_alloc_coherent() with GFP_ATOMIC flag,
> > > regardless the flags provided by the caller. This causes excessive
> > > pruning of emergency memory pools without any good reason. Additionaly,
> > > on ARM architecture any driver which is using dmapools will sooner or
> > > later  trigger the following error:
> > > "ERROR: 256 KiB atomic DMA coherent pool is too small!
> > > Please increase it with coherent_pool= kernel parameter!".
> > > Increasing the coherent pool size usually doesn't help much and only
> > > delays such error, because all GFP_ATOMIC DMA allocations are always
> > > served from the special, very limited memory pool.
> > >
> >
> > Is this problem serious enough to justify merging the patch into 3.7?
> > And into -stable kernels?
> 
> I wonder if it is a good idea to merge such change at the end of current
> -rc period.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

But what we do sometimes if we think a patch needs a bit more
real-world testing before backporting is to merge it into -rc1 in the
normal merge window, and tag it for -stable backporting.  That way it
gets a few weeks(?) testing in mainline before getting backported.

--
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>