Hi,
On 1/15/21 1:14 PM, Christian König wrote:
> Hans do you have any more comments or a tested-by?
Sorry, I've been busy chasing after another 5.11 regression,
no comments, also no tested-by, but I do fully expect this to solve
the issue.
> Otherwise I push it to drm-misc-fixes today.
That sounds good to me.
Regards,
Hans
>
> Thanks,
> Christian.
>
> Am 13.01.21 um 14:13 schrieb Christian König:
>> The only flag we really need is __GFP_NOMEMALLOC, highmem depends on
>> dma32 and moveable/compound should never be set in the first place.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c | 11 ++++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c
>> index 8cd776adc592..11e0313db0ea 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c
>> @@ -79,12 +79,13 @@ static struct page *ttm_pool_alloc_page(struct ttm_pool *pool, gfp_t gfp_flags,
>> struct page *p;
>> void *vaddr;
>> - if (order) {
>> - gfp_flags |= GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT | __GFP_NORETRY |
>> + /* Don't set the __GFP_COMP flag for higher order allocations.
>> + * Mapping pages directly into an userspace process and calling
>> + * put_page() on a TTM allocated page is illegal.
>> + */
>> + if (order)
>> + gfp_flags |= __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | __GFP_NORETRY |
>> __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM;
>> - gfp_flags &= ~__GFP_MOVABLE;
>> - gfp_flags &= ~__GFP_COMP;
>> - }
>> if (!pool->use_dma_alloc) {
>> p = alloc_pages(gfp_flags, order);
>
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
