On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 03:08:22PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote: > 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. >
I have looked into this a bit, changing TTM over to allocations with GFP_COMP seems pretty straight forward. I have local patches that are working with my driver (Xe), will post something shortly. Matt > Sorry for sending a stupid patch. > > Matt
