Am 15.01.21 um 13:54 schrieb Hans de Goede:
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.
Yeah, I know what you mean :)
Otherwise I push it to drm-misc-fixes today.
That sounds good to me.
Thanks, going to do so any moment.
Regards,
Christian.
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
