Hi Christoph, On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, Vegard Nossum wrote: > > - DMA can be a problem since there's generally no way for kmemcheck to > > determine when/if a chunk of memory is used for DMA. Ideally, DMA should > > be > > allocated with untracked caches, but this requires annotation of the > > drivers in question.
On Feb 8, 2008 9:10 AM, Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is a fundamental misunderstanding here: GFP_DMA allocations have > nothing to do with DMA. Rather GFP_DMA means allocate memory in a special > range of physical memory that is required by legacy devices that cannot > use the high address bits for one or the other reason. Any regular > memory can be used for DMA. No there isn't and we've been over this with Vegard many times :-). Christoph, can you actually see this in the patch? There shouldn't be any __GFP_DMA confusion there. What we have is per-object __GFP_NOTRACK which can be used to suppress false positives for DMA-filled objects and SLAB_NOTRACK for whole _caches_ that contains objects which we must not take page faults at all. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/