Re: GFP_ATOMIC versus GFP_NOWAIT

[Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>]

Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> writes:

> Looking through the tree it seems that almost all drivers that need to
> allocate memory in atomic contexts use GFP_ATOMIC.  I have been asking
> dmaengine device driver authors to switch their atomic allocations to
> GFP_NOWAIT.  The rationale being that in most cases a dma device is
> either offloading an operation that will automatically fallback to
> software when the descriptor allocation fails, or we can simply poll
> and wait for the dma device to release some in use descriptors.  So it
> does not make sense to grab from the emergency pools when the result
> of an allocation failure is some additional cpu overhead.  Am I
> correct in my nagging, and should this idea be spread outside of
> drivers/dma/ to cut down on GFP_ATOMIC usage, or is this not a big
> issue?

It's probably hard to find a good global priority order between
the various allocators, depending on how much the fallback costs. 
But in principle it sounds like a good idea.

-Andi

-- 
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>