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:   Mon, 26 Nov 2018 00:02:13 -0800
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.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,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        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: <20181126080213.GA17809@infradead.org>
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/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 01:23:41PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Is this also true for caches created by kmem_cache_create(), that
> debugging options can result in not respecting the alignment passed to
> kmem_cache_create()? That would be rather bad, IMHO.

That's what I understood in the discussion.  If not it would make
our live simpler, but would need to be well document.

Christoph can probably explain the alignment choices in slub.

> 
> > 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.

True, purely slab probably isn't too bad.