Re: [PATCH v2] mm: cma: indefinitely retry allocations in cma_alloc

[Chris Goldsworthy <cgoldswo@codeaurora.org>]

On 2020-09-11 14:42, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 9/11/20 2:37 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> 
>> I am by no means an authoritative CMA person but this behavior does 
>> not seem acceptable, there is no doubt the existing one is sub-optimal 
>> under specific circumstances, but an indefinite retry, as well as a 
>> 100ms sleep appear to be arbitrary at best. How about you introduce a 
>> parameter that allows the tuning of the number of retries and/or delay 
>> between retries?
> 
> Also:
> 
> You should send your patch to linux-mm@kvack.org -- that's where
> most memory management type patches are reviewed.
> 
> You should also send your patch to someone who could actually merge
> it into the kernel source tree -- assuming that's what you want to 
> happen.
> 
> Try scripts/get_mainttainer.pl on your patch to see what it says.
> 
> And if you are going to use a "cover letter" or "introductory email" 
> before
> the actual patch, the second (patch(es)) should be sent chained to the
> first email.  git send-email should do this for you.

Hi Randy,

git send-email was not using the correct ID to generate a response to 
the cover letter, and I'm not able to fathom why.  This e-mail was 
actually just sent out as a test to LKML as a test so I could figure out 
how to resolve the issue, I wasn't actually expecting anyone to read 
this.  The actual e-mail, with the correct maintainer (Andrew Morton) 
and mailing lists, as well as the summary of the discussion on the 
patches so far, may be found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/8/11/893

Thanks,

Chris.

-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora 
Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project