On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 01:18:18AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 9:30 PM
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 03:35:08AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2023 12:43 AM
> > > >
> > > > @@ -2676,7 +2676,7 @@ static int copy_context_table(struct
> > intel_iommu
> > > > *iommu,
> > > > if (!old_ce)
> > > > goto out;
> > > >
> > > > - new_ce = alloc_pgtable_page(iommu->node);
> > > > + new_ce = alloc_pgtable_page(iommu->node,
> > > > GFP_KERNEL);
> > >
> > > GFP_ATOMIC
> >
> > Can't be:
> >
> > old_ce = memremap(old_ce_phys, PAGE_SIZE,
> > MEMREMAP_WB);
> > if (!old_ce)
> > goto out;
> >
> > new_ce = alloc_pgtable_page(iommu->node,
> > GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!new_ce)
> >
> > memremap() is sleeping.
> >
> > And the only caller is:
> >
> > ctxt_tbls = kcalloc(ctxt_table_entries, sizeof(void *), GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!ctxt_tbls)
> > goto out_unmap;
> >
> > for (bus = 0; bus < 256; bus++) {
> > ret = copy_context_table(iommu, &old_rt[bus],
> > ctxt_tbls, bus, ext);
> >
>
> Yes, but the patch description says "Push the GFP_ATOMIC to all
> callers." implying it's purely a refactoring w/o changing those
> semantics.
Sure, lets split the patch, it is a good idea
Jason
