Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:32:49 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [Intel IOMMU 05/10] Intel IOMMU driver |
| |
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:32:23 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Keshavamurthy, Anil S wrote: > > > +static inline void *alloc_pgtable_page(void) > > +{ > > + return (void *)get_zeroed_page(GFP_ATOMIC); > > +} > > Need to pass gfp_t parameter. Repeates a couple of times. > ... > Is it not possible here to drop the lock and do the alloc with GFP_KERNEL > and deal with the resulting race? That is done in other parts of the > kernel. > ... > This may be able to become a GFP_KERNEL alloc since interrupts are enabled > at this point? > ... > GFP_KERNEL alloc possible? >
Yeah, if there are any callsites at all at which we know that we can perform a sleeping allocation, Christoph's suggestions should be adopted. Because even a bare GFP_NOIO is heaps more robust than GFP_ATOMIC, and it will also reload the free-pages reserves, making subsequent GFP_ATOMIC allocations more likely to succeed.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |