Re: [PATCH] swiotlb: Fix inversed DMA_ATTR_NO_WARN test

Michel Dänzer
2018-05-02T16:59:48Z

On 2018-05-02 06:21 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 04:31:09PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>>> No. __GFP_NOWARN (and gfp_t flags in general) are the wrong interface
>>> for dma allocations and just cause problems. I actually plan to
>>> get rid of the gfp_t argument in dma_alloc_attrs sooner, and only
>>> allow either GFP_KERNEL or GFP_DMA passed in dma_alloc_coherent.
>>
>> How about GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT? TTM uses that to opportunistically
>> allocate huge pages (GFP_TRANSHUGE can result in unacceptably long
>> delays with memory pressure).
>
> Well, that is exactly what I don't want drivers to do - same for
> __GFP_COMP in some drm code. This very much assumes the page allocator
> is used to back dma allocations, which very often it actually isn't, and
> any use of magic gfp flags creates a tight coupling of consumers with a
> specific implementation.
>
> In general I can't think of a good reason not to actually use
> GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT by default in the dma allocator unless
> DMA_ATTR_ALLOC_SINGLE_PAGES is set. Can you prepare a patch for that?

I'm afraid I'll have to leave that to somebody else.

--
Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer