lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] dma-buf: system_heap: do not warn for costly allocation
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 8:26 AM Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Linux VM is not hard to support PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ODER allocation
> so normally expects driver passes __GFP_NOWARN in that case
> if they has fallback options.
>
> system_heap in dmabuf is the case so do not flood into demsg
> with the warning for recording more precious information logs.
> (below is ION warning example I got but dmabuf system heap is
> nothing different).
>
> [ 1233.911533][ T460] warn_alloc: 11 callbacks suppressed
> [ 1233.911539][ T460] allocator@2.0-s: page allocation failure: order:4, mode:0x140dc2(GFP_HIGHUSER|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_ZERO), nodemask=(null),cpuset=/,mems_allowed=0
> [ 1233.926235][ T460] Call trace:
> [ 1233.929370][ T460] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1d8
> [ 1233.933704][ T460] show_stack+0x18/0x24
> [ 1233.937701][ T460] dump_stack+0xc0/0x140
> [ 1233.941783][ T460] warn_alloc+0xf4/0x148
> [ 1233.945862][ T460] __alloc_pages_slowpath+0x9fc/0xa10
> [ 1233.951101][ T460] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x278/0x2c0
> [ 1233.956285][ T460] ion_page_pool_alloc+0xd8/0x100
> [ 1233.961144][ T460] ion_system_heap_allocate+0xbc/0x2f0
> [ 1233.966440][ T460] ion_buffer_create+0x68/0x274
> [ 1233.971130][ T460] ion_buffer_alloc+0x8c/0x110
> [ 1233.975733][ T460] ion_dmabuf_alloc+0x44/0xe8
> [ 1233.980248][ T460] ion_ioctl+0x100/0x320
> [ 1233.984332][ T460] __arm64_sys_ioctl+0x90/0xc8
> [ 1233.988934][ T460] el0_svc_common+0x9c/0x168
> [ 1233.993360][ T460] do_el0_svc+0x1c/0x28
> [ 1233.997358][ T460] el0_sync_handler+0xd8/0x250
> [ 1234.001989][ T460] el0_sync+0x148/0x180
>
> Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
> ---
> drivers/dma-buf/heaps/system_heap.c | 9 +++++++--
> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/system_heap.c b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/system_heap.c
> index 29e49ac17251..33c25a5e06f9 100644
> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/system_heap.c
> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/system_heap.c
> @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ struct dma_heap_attachment {
> bool mapped;
> };
>
> -#define HIGH_ORDER_GFP (((GFP_HIGHUSER | __GFP_ZERO | __GFP_NOWARN \
> +#define HIGH_ORDER_GFP (((GFP_HIGHUSER | __GFP_ZERO \
> | __GFP_NORETRY) & ~__GFP_RECLAIM) \
> | __GFP_COMP)
> #define LOW_ORDER_GFP (GFP_HIGHUSER | __GFP_ZERO | __GFP_COMP)
> @@ -315,6 +315,7 @@ static struct page *alloc_largest_available(unsigned long size,
> unsigned int max_order)
> {
> struct page *page;
> + unsigned long gfp_flags;
> int i;
>
> for (i = 0; i < NUM_ORDERS; i++) {
> @@ -323,7 +324,11 @@ static struct page *alloc_largest_available(unsigned long size,
> if (max_order < orders[i])
> continue;
>
> - page = alloc_pages(order_flags[i], orders[i]);
> + gfp_flags = order_flags[i];
> + if (orders[i] > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
> + gfp_flags |= __GFP_NOWARN;
> +
> + page = alloc_pages(gfp_flags, orders[i]);

Would it be cleaner to just set up the flags properly in the
order_flags array? I'm not sure I understand why your patch does it
dynamically?

thanks
-john

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-10 18:36    [W:0.115 / U:0.264 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site