On Thu, 2020-08-06 at 07:18 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 11:43:15AM +0200, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote: > > > 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. > > The latter is pretty much what I expect, as we only support the default and > per-device DMA CMAs.
Fair enough, should I send a v3 with everything cleaned-up/rebased, or you'd rather pick it up from your version?
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
