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. _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
