Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] swiotlb: Fix inversed DMA_ATTR_NO_WARN test
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc:     Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=c3=b6nig?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>
References: <20180501132411.2311-1-michel@daenzer.net>
 <786ca83f-45c4-264b-2aef-d84fb18d3d28@gmail.com>
 <CAKMK7uH2+v3_UUqXdCjz_8=H4VRt1zB+dgE99PuuPqd+XM2=-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180502124151.GA22857@lst.de>
 <1066dfa2-2f78-815d-c65a-9d09eb35458c@daenzer.net>
 <20180502162145.GA26787@lst.de>
From:   =?UTF-8?Q?Michel_D=c3=a4nzer?= <michel@daenzer.net>
Message-ID: <ba310210-6f3c-f4e6-29e5-5ae6e791ebeb@daenzer.net>
Date:   Wed, 2 May 2018 18:59:42 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180502162145.GA26787@lst.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-CA
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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