[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [Intel IOMMU 06/10] Avoid memory allocation failures in dma map api calls
    On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:06:39 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <> wrote:

    > On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 14:37 -0700, Keshavamurthy, Anil S wrote:
    > > plain text document attachment (intel_iommu_pf_memalloc.patch)
    > > Intel IOMMU driver needs memory during DMA map calls to setup its internal
    > > page tables and for other data structures. As we all know that these DMA
    > > map calls are mostly called in the interrupt context or with the spinlock
    > > held by the upper level drivers(network/storage drivers), so in order to
    > > avoid any memory allocation failure due to low memory issues,
    > > this patch makes memory allocation by temporarily setting PF_MEMALLOC
    > > flags for the current task before making memory allocation calls.
    > >
    > > We evaluated mempools as a backup when kmem_cache_alloc() fails
    > > and found that mempools are really not useful here because
    > > 1) We don;t know for sure how much to reserve in advance
    > So you just unleashed an unbounded allocation context on PF_MEMALLOC?
    > seems like a really really bad idea.
    > > 2) And mempools are not useful for GFP_ATOMIC case (as we call
    > > memory alloc functions with GFP_ATOMIC)
    > Mempools work as intended with GFP_ATOMIC, it gets filled up to the
    > specified number of elements using GFP_KERNEL (at creation time). This
    > gives GFP_ATOMIC allocations nr_elements extra items once it would start
    > failing.

    Yup. Changelog is buggy.

    > > With PF_MEMALLOC flag set in the current->flags, the VM subsystem avoids
    > > any watermark checks before allocating memory thus guarantee'ing the
    > > memory till the last free page.
    > PF_MEMALLOC as is, is meant to salvage the VM from the typical VM
    > deadlock. Using it as you do now is not something a driver should ever
    > do, and I'm afraid I will have to strongly oppose this patch.
    > You really really want to calculate an upper bound on your memory
    > consumption and reserve this.
    > So, I'm afraid I'll have to..
    > NACK!

    err, PF_MEMALLOC doesn't actually do anything if in_interrupt(), so your
    reason-for-nacking isn't legitimate. And neither is Anil's patch ;)

    So I'm thinking that if this patch passed all his testing, a patch which
    didn't play these PF_MEMALLOC games would pass the same tests.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-06-26 07:37    [W:0.022 / U:7.404 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site