Re: [PATCH RFC] dma-direct: Try reallocation with GFP_DMA32 if possible
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 11:58:58AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > It's because it's written on the tree with another fix patch I sent > beforehand ("[PATCH 1/2] dma-direct: Don't repeat allocation for no-op > GFP_DMA"). > > Could you check that one at first? I'm fine to rebase and resubmit > this one, if still preferred, though. That one looks fine, too. I'll add it to my patch queue. ___ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
Re: [PATCH RFC] dma-direct: Try reallocation with GFP_DMA32 if possible
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 11:47:02 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 05:18:19PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > As the recent swiotlb bug revealed, we seem to have given up the > > direct DMA allocation too early and felt back to swiotlb allocation. > > The reason is that swiotlb allocator expected that dma_direct_alloc() > > would try harder to get pages even below 64bit DMA mask with > > GFP_DMA32, but the function doesn't do that but only deals with > > GFP_DMA case. > > > > This patch adds a similar fallback reallocation with GFP_DMA32 as > > we've done with GFP_DMA. The condition is that the coherent mask is > > smaller than 64bit (i.e. some address limitation), and neither GFP_DMA > > nor GFP_DMA32 is set beforehand. > > > > Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai> > > > --- > > > > This is a resend of a test patch included in the previous thread > > ("swiotlb: Fix unexpected swiotlb_alloc_coherent() failures"). > > I like the patch, but as-is it doesn't apply. Can you resend it against > latest Linus' tree? It's because it's written on the tree with another fix patch I sent beforehand ("[PATCH 1/2] dma-direct: Don't repeat allocation for no-op GFP_DMA"). Could you check that one at first? I'm fine to rebase and resubmit this one, if still preferred, though. thanks, Takashi ___ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
Re: [PATCH RFC] dma-direct: Try reallocation with GFP_DMA32 if possible
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 05:18:19PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > As the recent swiotlb bug revealed, we seem to have given up the > direct DMA allocation too early and felt back to swiotlb allocation. > The reason is that swiotlb allocator expected that dma_direct_alloc() > would try harder to get pages even below 64bit DMA mask with > GFP_DMA32, but the function doesn't do that but only deals with > GFP_DMA case. > > This patch adds a similar fallback reallocation with GFP_DMA32 as > we've done with GFP_DMA. The condition is that the coherent mask is > smaller than 64bit (i.e. some address limitation), and neither GFP_DMA > nor GFP_DMA32 is set beforehand. > > Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai> > --- > > This is a resend of a test patch included in the previous thread > ("swiotlb: Fix unexpected swiotlb_alloc_coherent() failures"). I like the patch, but as-is it doesn't apply. Can you resend it against latest Linus' tree? ___ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu