On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 03:46:00PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 04:41:41PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > /** > > > - * ttm_backup_backup_page() - Backup a page > > > + * ttm_backup_backup_folio() - Backup a folio > > > * @backup: The struct backup pointer to use. > > > - * @page: The page to back up. > > > - * @writeback: Whether to perform immediate writeback of the page. > > > + * @folio: The folio to back up. > > > + * @order: The allocation order of @folio. Since TTM allocates > > > higher-order > > > + * pages without __GFP_COMP, folio_nr_pages(@folio) would always > > > + * return 1; the caller must pass the true order explicitly. > > Wait, what? This is just broken. TTM should change to allocate using > GFP_COMP. Why can't graphics people ask questions before writing stupid > patches? >
To be honest, I have no idea why TTM doesn't set GFP_COMP. This predates my work in graphics by nearly a decade. I found the following comment in TTM, which was added in this patch: `git format-patch -1 bf9eee249ac20` As far as I can tell, setting GFP_COMP would make things a lot easier in a number of places. Christian, who maintains TTM, is out for a couple of weeks, but this is something we should probably take a closer look at. Sorry for sending a stupid patch. Matt
