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;
Date:   Fri, 23 Nov 2018 13:30:40 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Levin Alexander <Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@chromium.org>,
        Huaisheng Ye <yehs1@lenovo.com>,
        Tomasz Figa <tfiga@google.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
        yingjoe.chen@mediatek.com, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] iommu/io-pgtable-arm-v7s: Use DMA32 zone for page
 tables
Message-ID: <20181123123040.GH8625@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20181111090341.120786-1-drinkcat@chromium.org>
 <0100016737801f14-84f1265d-4577-4dcf-ad57-90dbc8e0a78f-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <20181121213853.GL3065@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <c5ccde1e-a711-ad33-537c-2d5a0bd9edd4@arm.com>
 <20181122082336.GA2049@infradead.org>
 <555dd63a-0634-6a39-7abc-121e02273cb2@suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <555dd63a-0634-6a39-7abc-121e02273cb2@suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri 23-11-18 13:23:41, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 11/22/18 9:23 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
[...]
> > But I do agree with the sentiment of not wanting to spread GFP_DMA32
> > futher into the slab allocator.
> 
> I don't see a problem with GFP_DMA32 for custom caches. Generic
> kmalloc() would be worse, since it would have to create a new array of
> kmalloc caches. But that's already ruled out due to the alignment.

Yes that makes quite a lot of sense to me. We do not really need a
generic support. Just make sure that if somebody creates a GFP_DMA32
restricted cache then allow allocating restricted memory from that.

Is there any fundamental reason that this wouldn't be possible?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs