From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <owner-linux-mm@kvack.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EB58C19F2D
	for <linux-mm@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 07:34:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix)
	id DE6548E0002; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 03:34:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40)
	id D95E68E0001; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 03:34:58 -0400 (EDT)
X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org
Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042)
	id C85178E0002; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 03:34:58 -0400 (EDT)
X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org
Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0013.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.13])
	by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA0158E0001
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 03:34:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from smtpin27.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1])
	by unirelay09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8998A80680
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 07:34:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-FDA: 79786500276.27.A4B3857
Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211])
	by imf03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 034C120185
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 07:34:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407)
	id 1616868AA6; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 09:34:55 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2022 09:34:54 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	John Donnelly <john.p.donnelly@oracle.com>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma/pool: do not complain if DMA pool is not allocated
Message-ID: <20220811073454.GD13886@lst.de>
References: <Yj3zyLs4f+ba6UqF@dhcp22.suse.cz> <YupFSpXOrcfXJNya@dhcp22.suse.cz> <YuqNToCACD8kKBG+@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> <YuqOrJKcgfamdXkk@dhcp22.suse.cz> <YuqU87SDwP0zg+c7@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> <YuqX0OAItlMDfRUV@dhcp22.suse.cz> <YuunCO2lsLDWTGw+@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> <Yuu1EyC95XL98XNI@dhcp22.suse.cz> <Yu0OWLbzLxCkSGVJ@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> <Yu1VTAxd9/jP/iEk@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Yu1VTAxd9/jP/iEk@dhcp22.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1660203298; a=rsa-sha256;
	cv=none;
	b=16MUEa5KjiNgCanpZdm+FInSdVe3deYOBJDV6xi1PLJ0qsH/pptjZaCFmOLKu9dnYUEazq
	bdVY916W8TSN42uw35RLANFQeOry6+S/MuWAMVSK1nVfmRxRLZ6GODg9K0JKPCBcJoGusS
	8YIctBgMzJhRzH2ZVcL/7a24L7OpERA=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com;
	s=arc-20220608; t=1660203298;
	h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:
	 message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:
	 content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:
	 in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references;
	bh=L7eK97qylRT4TIVKbS2J7JUrZY2NoG4/0xGvR9WF1co=;
	b=ZhWGepjnIUcaHmUCmlsrYwBFcXdTJ09CgthVeYng4SXmHqluYrO+IWQ3GP9v4za6m2jLYP
	eTx3/Xjdm0gYo+1czAbHxsKgpZOPGIqyFBmAYm7per0eFXf9zD0R5wDq6fe9lAFnqoCPrh
	Zumjy8aLh41HuHmykoHSlUiUIMb6/z0=
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1;
	imf03.hostedemail.com;
	dkim=none;
	dmarc=none;
	spf=none (imf03.hostedemail.com: domain of hch@lst.de has no SPF policy when checking 213.95.11.211) smtp.mailfrom=hch@lst.de
X-Stat-Signature: u89bam81868xdzdg7g65xqepyf4djscz
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 034C120185
Authentication-Results: imf03.hostedemail.com;
	dkim=none;
	dmarc=none;
	spf=none (imf03.hostedemail.com: domain of hch@lst.de has no SPF policy when checking 213.95.11.211) smtp.mailfrom=hch@lst.de
X-Rspam-User: 
X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04
X-HE-Tag: 1660203297-212581
X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org
List-ID: <linux-mm.kvack.org>

On Fri, Aug 05, 2022 at 07:37:16PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> GFP_DMA is a misnomer. It doesn't really say that the allocation should
> be done for actual DMA. GFP_DMA really says allocate from ZONE_DMA.

Yes.  But in practice that either is to do DMA of some form, including
the s390 variant not using the dma api, or completely stupid cargo
cult code.

> It
> is my understanding that all actual DMA users should use a dedicated dma
> allocation APIs which should do the right thing wrt. address constrains.

Yes.  And we were at a point where we got to that, but it seems somewhat
recently a lot of people added completely stupid GFP_DMA kmallocs in the
all over the crypto drivers.  Sigh...