From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0143CC04AAC for ; Mon, 20 May 2019 14:17:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D21FE214AE for ; Mon, 20 May 2019 14:16:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2387782AbfETOQ7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 May 2019 10:16:59 -0400 Received: from iolanthe.rowland.org ([192.131.102.54]:58742 "HELO iolanthe.rowland.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1731093AbfETOQ6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 May 2019 10:16:58 -0400 Received: (qmail 1756 invoked by uid 2102); 20 May 2019 10:16:57 -0400 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 20 May 2019 10:16:57 -0400 Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 10:16:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Alan Stern X-X-Sender: stern@iolanthe.rowland.org To: Christoph Hellwig cc: Oliver Neukum , Jaewon Kim , , , Jaewon Kim , , , , Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] usb: host: xhci: allow __GFP_FS in dma allocation In-Reply-To: <20190520101206.GA9291@infradead.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 20 May 2019, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 11:09:25AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > we actually do. It is just higher up in the calling path: > > Perfect! > > > So, do we need to audit the mem_flags again? > > What are we supposed to use? GFP_KERNEL? > > GFP_KERNEL if you can block, GFP_ATOMIC if you can't for a good reason, > that is the allocation is from irq context or under a spinlock. If you > think you have a case where you think you don't want to block, but it > is not because of the above reasons we need to have a chat about the > details. What if the allocation requires the kernel to swap some old pages out to the backing store, but the backing store is on the device that the driver is managing? The swap can't take place until the current I/O operation is complete (assuming the driver can handle only one I/O operation at a time), and the current operation can't complete until the old pages are swapped out. Result: deadlock. Isn't that the whole reason for using GFP_NOIO in the first place? Alan Stern