[PATCH] dma-pool: use single atomic pool for both DMA zones
Nicolas Saenz Julienne
nsaenzjulienne at suse.de
Fri Jul 10 04:19:40 EDT 2020
On Thu, 2020-07-09 at 14:49 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2020, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 06:00:35PM +0200, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2020-07-08 at 17:35 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 02:28:04PM +0200, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> > > > > When allocating atomic DMA memory for a device, the dma-pool core
> > > > > queries __dma_direct_optimal_gfp_mask() to check which atomic pool to
> > > > > use. It turns out the GFP flag returned is only an optimistic guess.
> > > > > The pool selected might sometimes live in a zone higher than the
> > > > > device's view of memory.
> > > > >
> > > > > As there isn't a way to grantee a mapping between a device's DMA
> > > > > constraints and correct GFP flags this unifies both DMA atomic pools.
> > > > > The resulting pool is allocated in the lower DMA zone available, if
> > > > > any,
> > > > > so as for devices to always get accessible memory while having the
> > > > > flexibility of using dma_pool_kernel for the non constrained ones.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: c84dc6e68a1d ("dma-pool: add additional coherent pools to map
> > > > > to gfp
> > > > > mask")
> > > > > Reported-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton at arm.com>
> > > > > Suggested-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy at arm.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne at suse.de>
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, this is not what I expected from the previous thread. I thought
> > > > we'd just use one dma pool based on runtime available of the zones..
> > >
> > > I may be misunderstanding you, but isn't that going back to how things
> > > used to
> > > be before pulling in David Rientjes' work? The benefit of having a
> > > GFP_KERNEL
> > > pool is that non-address-constrained devices can get their atomic memory
> > > there,
> > > instead of consuming somewhat scarcer low memory.
> > Yes, I think we are misunderstanding each other. I don't want to remove
> > any pool, just make better runtime decisions when to use them.
> Just to be extra explicit for the record and for my own understanding:
> Nicolas, your patch series "dma-pool: Fix atomic pool selection" obsoletes
> this patch, right? :)
Yes, that's right.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the linux-rpi-kernel