On Tue, 2020-08-04 at 08:06 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 06:09:56PM +0200, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote: > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ZONE_DMA) && (gfp & GFP_DMA)) > > + return end <= DMA_BIT_MASK(zone_dma_bits); > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ZONE_DMA32) && (gfp & GFP_DMA32)) > > + return end <= DMA_BIT_MASK(32); > > + if (gfp & GFP_KERNEL) > > + return end > DMA_BIT_MASK(32); > > So the GFP_KERNEL one here looks weird. For one I don't think the if > line is needed at all, and it just confuses things.
Yes, sorry, shoud've seen that. > Second I don't see the need (and actually some harm) in preventing GFP_KERNEL > allocations from dipping into lower CMA areas - something that we did support > before 5.8 with the single pool. My thinking is the least we pressure CMA the better, it's generally scarse, and it'll not grow as the atomic pools grow. As far as harm is concerned, we now check addresses for correctness, so we shouldn't run into problems. There is a potential case for architectures defining a default CMA but not defining DMA zones where this could be problematic. But isn't that just plain abusing CMA? If you need low memory allocations, you should be defining DMA zones. Regards, Nicolas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
