On Wed 11-07-18 16:35:28, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> 2018-07-10 18:50 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> > On Tue 10-07-18 16:19:32, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >> Hello, Marek.
> >>
> >> 2018-07-09 21:19 GMT+09:00 Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >> > cma_alloc() function doesn't really support gfp flags other than
> >> > __GFP_NOWARN, so convert gfp_mask parameter to boolean no_warn parameter.
> >>
> >> Although gfp_mask isn't used in cma_alloc() except no_warn, it can be used
> >> in alloc_contig_range(). For example, if passed gfp mask has no __GFP_FS,
> >> compaction(isolation) would work differently. Do you have considered
> >> such a case?
> >
> > Does any of cma_alloc users actually care about GFP_NO{FS,IO}?
>
> I don't know. My guess is that cma_alloc() is used for DMA allocation so
> block device would use it, too. If fs/block subsystem initiates the
> request for the device,
> it would be possible that cma_alloc() is called with such a flag.
> Again, I don't know
> much about those subsystem so I would be wrong.
The patch converts existing users and none of them really tries to use
anything other than GFP_KERNEL [|__GFP_NOWARN] so this doesn't seem to
be the case. Should there be a new user requiring more restricted
gfp_mask we should carefuly re-evaluate and think how to support it.
Until then I would simply stick with the proposed approach because my
experience tells me that a wrong gfp mask usage is way too easy so the
simpler the api is the less likely we will see an abuse.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
