DMA allocations from CMA and fatal_signal_pending check

[Florian Fainelli]

On 11/03/2014 08:45 AM, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31 2014, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> I agree that the CMA allocation should not be allowed to succeed, but
>> the dma_alloc_coherent() allocation should succeed. If we look at the
>> sysport driver, there are kmalloc() calls to initialize private
>> structures, those will succeed (except under high memory pressure), so
>> by the same token, a driver expects DMA allocations to succeed (unless
>> we are under high memory pressure)
>>
>> What are we trying to solve exactly with the fatal_signal_pending()
>> check here? Are we just optimizing for the case where a process has
>> allocated from a CMA region to allow this region to be returned to the
>> pool of free pages when it gets killed? Could there be another mechanism
>> used to reclaim those pages if we know the process is getting killed
>> anyway?
> 
> We're guarding against situations where process may hang around
> arbitrarily long time after receiving SIGKILL.  If user does “kill -9
> $pid” the usual expectation is that the $pid process will die within
> seconds and anything longer is perceived by user as a bug.
> 
> What problem are *you* trying to solve?  If user sent SIGKILL to
> a process that imitated device initialisation, what is the point of
> continuing initialising the device?  Just recover and return -EINTR.

I have two problems with the current approach:

- behavior of a dma_alloc_coherent() call is not consistent between a
CONFIG_CMA=y vs. CONFIG_CMA=n build, which is probably fine as long as
we document that properly

- there is currently no way for a caller of dma_alloc_coherent to tell
whether the allocation failed because it was interrupted by a signal, a
genuine OOM or something else, this is largely made worse by problem 1

> 
>> Well, not really. This driver is not an isolated case, there are tons of
>> other networking drivers that do exactly the same thing, and we do
>> expect these dma_alloc_* calls to succeed.
> 
> Again, why do you expect them to succeed?  The code must handle failures
> correctly anyway so why do you wish to ignore fatal signal?

I guess expecting them to succeed is probably not good, but at we should
at least be able to report an accurate error code to the caller and down
to user-space.

Thanks
--
Florian