search for: __gfp_wait

..._free) > > > + set_bit(smp_processor_id(), > > > + pool->cpus_have_tags); > > > + } > > > + > > > + spin_unlock(&pool->lock); > > > + local_irq_restore(flags); > > > + > > > + if (tag >= 0 || !(gfp & __GFP_WAIT)) > > > + break; > > > + > > > + schedule(); > > > + > > > + local_irq_save(flags); > > > + tags = this_cpu_ptr(pool->tag_cpu); > > > + } > > > > What guarantees that this wait will terminate? > > It seems fa...

..._free) > > > + set_bit(smp_processor_id(), > > > + pool->cpus_have_tags); > > > + } > > > + > > > + spin_unlock(&pool->lock); > > > + local_irq_restore(flags); > > > + > > > + if (tag >= 0 || !(gfp & __GFP_WAIT)) > > > + break; > > > + > > > + schedule(); > > > + > > > + local_irq_save(flags); > > > + tags = this_cpu_ptr(pool->tag_cpu); > > > + } > > > > What guarantees that this wait will terminate? > > It seems fa...

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 13:44:54 -0700 Kent Overstreet <kmo at daterainc.com> wrote: > > > > What guarantees that this wait will terminate? > > > > > > It seems fairly clear to me from the break statement a couple lines up; > > > if we were passed __GFP_WAIT we terminate iff we succesfully allocated a > > > tag. If we weren't passed __GFP_WAIT we never actually sleep. > > > > OK ;) Let me rephrase. What guarantees that a tag will become available? > > > > If what we have here is an open-coded __GFP_NOFAIL then t...

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 13:44:54 -0700 Kent Overstreet <kmo at daterainc.com> wrote: > > > > What guarantees that this wait will terminate? > > > > > > It seems fairly clear to me from the break statement a couple lines up; > > > if we were passed __GFP_WAIT we terminate iff we succesfully allocated a > > > tag. If we weren't passed __GFP_WAIT we never actually sleep. > > > > OK ;) Let me rephrase. What guarantees that a tag will become available? > > > > If what we have here is an open-coded __GFP_NOFAIL then t...

...013 13:44:54 -0700 Kent Overstreet <kmo at daterainc.com> wrote: > > > > > > What guarantees that this wait will terminate? > > > > > > > > It seems fairly clear to me from the break statement a couple lines up; > > > > if we were passed __GFP_WAIT we terminate iff we succesfully allocated a > > > > tag. If we weren't passed __GFP_WAIT we never actually sleep. > > > > > > OK ;) Let me rephrase. What guarantees that a tag will become available? > > > > > > If what we have here is an open-...

...smp_processor_id(), > > > > + pool->cpus_have_tags); > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + spin_unlock(&pool->lock); > > > > + local_irq_restore(flags); > > > > + > > > > + if (tag >= 0 || !(gfp & __GFP_WAIT)) > > > > + break; > > > > + > > > > + schedule(); > > > > + > > > > + local_irq_save(flags); > > > > + tags = this_cpu_ptr(pool->tag_cpu); > > > > + } > > > > > > What guarantees that thi...

...: pool to allocate from > + * @gfp: gfp flags > + * > + * Returns a tag - an integer in the range [0..nr_tags) (passed to > + * tag_pool_init()), or otherwise -ENOSPC on allocation failure. > + * > + * Safe to be called from interrupt context (assuming it isn't passed > + * __GFP_WAIT, of course). > + * > + * Will not fail if passed __GFP_WAIT. > + */ > +int percpu_ida_alloc(struct percpu_ida *pool, gfp_t gfp) > +{ > + DEFINE_WAIT(wait); > + struct percpu_ida_cpu *tags; > + unsigned long flags; > + int tag; > + > + local_irq_save(flags); > + t...

...: pool to allocate from > + * @gfp: gfp flags > + * > + * Returns a tag - an integer in the range [0..nr_tags) (passed to > + * tag_pool_init()), or otherwise -ENOSPC on allocation failure. > + * > + * Safe to be called from interrupt context (assuming it isn't passed > + * __GFP_WAIT, of course). > + * > + * Will not fail if passed __GFP_WAIT. > + */ > +int percpu_ida_alloc(struct percpu_ida *pool, gfp_t gfp) > +{ > + DEFINE_WAIT(wait); > + struct percpu_ida_cpu *tags; > + unsigned long flags; > + int tag; > + > + local_irq_save(flags); > + t...

...;nr_free]; > > + if (tags->nr_free) > > + set_bit(smp_processor_id(), > > + pool->cpus_have_tags); > > + } > > + > > + spin_unlock(&pool->lock); > > + local_irq_restore(flags); > > + > > + if (tag >= 0 || !(gfp & __GFP_WAIT)) > > + break; > > + > > + schedule(); > > + > > + local_irq_save(flags); > > + tags = this_cpu_ptr(pool->tag_cpu); > > + } > > What guarantees that this wait will terminate? It seems fairly clear to me from the break statement a couple line...

.../drm/i915/i915_gem.c index 970ad17..7045f45 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c @@ -1801,7 +1801,14 @@ i915_gem_object_get_pages_gtt(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj) gfp |= __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NO_KSWAPD; gfp &= ~(__GFP_IO | __GFP_WAIT); } - +#ifdef CONFIG_SWIOTLB + if (swiotlb_nr_tbl()) { + st->nents++; + sg_set_page(sg, page, PAGE_SIZE, 0); + sg = sg_next(sg); + continue; + } +#endif if (!i || page_to_pfn(page) != last_pfn + 1) { if (i) sg = sg_next(sg); @@ -1812,8 +1819,10 @@ i915_gem_object_get_pag...

...0ed9..7383d23 100644 --- a/net/core/sock.c +++ b/net/core/sock.c @@ -1865,9 +1865,7 @@ bool skb_page_frag_refill(unsigned int sz, struct page_frag *pfrag, gfp_t prio) put_page(pfrag->page); } - /* We restrict high order allocations to users that can afford to wait */ - order = (prio & __GFP_WAIT) ? SKB_FRAG_PAGE_ORDER : 0; - + order = SKB_FRAG_PAGE_ORDER; do { gfp_t gfp = prio; -- 1.8.5.1

...0ed9..7383d23 100644 --- a/net/core/sock.c +++ b/net/core/sock.c @@ -1865,9 +1865,7 @@ bool skb_page_frag_refill(unsigned int sz, struct page_frag *pfrag, gfp_t prio) put_page(pfrag->page); } - /* We restrict high order allocations to users that can afford to wait */ - order = (prio & __GFP_WAIT) ? SKB_FRAG_PAGE_ORDER : 0; - + order = SKB_FRAG_PAGE_ORDER; do { gfp_t gfp = prio; -- 1.8.5.1

...t[n]); } > + spin_unlock(&tags->lock); Drop. > + * Returns a tag - an integer in the range [0..nr_tags) (passed to > + * tag_pool_init()), or otherwise -ENOSPC on allocation failure. > + * > + * Safe to be called from interrupt context (assuming it isn't passed > + * __GFP_WAIT, of course). > + * > + * Will not fail if passed __GFP_WAIT. > + */ > +int percpu_ida_alloc(struct percpu_ida *pool, gfp_t gfp) > +{ > + DEFINE_WAIT(wait); > + struct percpu_ida_cpu *tags; > + unsigned long flags; > + int tag; > + > + local_irq_save(flags); > + t...

...t[n]); } > + spin_unlock(&tags->lock); Drop. > + * Returns a tag - an integer in the range [0..nr_tags) (passed to > + * tag_pool_init()), or otherwise -ENOSPC on allocation failure. > + * > + * Safe to be called from interrupt context (assuming it isn't passed > + * __GFP_WAIT, of course). > + * > + * Will not fail if passed __GFP_WAIT. > + */ > +int percpu_ida_alloc(struct percpu_ida *pool, gfp_t gfp) > +{ > + DEFINE_WAIT(wait); > + struct percpu_ida_cpu *tags; > + unsigned long flags; > + int tag; > + > + local_irq_save(flags); > + t...

From: Nicholas Bellinger <nab at linux-iscsi.org> Hi folks, This is an updated series for adding tag pre-allocation support of target fabric descriptor memory, utilizing Kent's latest per-cpu ida bits here, along with Christoph Lameter's latest comments: [PATCH 04/10] idr: Percpu ida http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137160026006974&w=2 The first patch is a

From: Nicholas Bellinger <nab at linux-iscsi.org> Hi folks, This is an updated series for adding tag pre-allocation support of target fabric descriptor memory, utilizing Kent's latest per-cpu ida bits here, along with Christoph Lameter's latest comments: [PATCH 04/10] idr: Percpu ida http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137160026006974&w=2 The first patch is a

Currently because of how mm behaves (3.10.y) the code even before the patch is a problem. I believe what may fix it is if instead of just removing the conditional on __GFP_WAIT, the initial order > 0 allocation should be made GFP_ATOMIC, then fallback to the original gfp mask for the order-0 allocations. On systems that have highly fragmented main memory with pressure, skb_page_frag_refill() causes problems. mm enters significant compaction cycles on all cpu's whi...

Currently because of how mm behaves (3.10.y) the code even before the patch is a problem. I believe what may fix it is if instead of just removing the conditional on __GFP_WAIT, the initial order > 0 allocation should be made GFP_ATOMIC, then fallback to the original gfp mask for the order-0 allocations. On systems that have highly fragmented main memory with pressure, skb_page_frag_refill() causes problems. mm enters significant compaction cycles on all cpu's whi...

...da_alloc - allocate a tag + * @pool: pool to allocate from + * @gfp: gfp flags + * + * Returns a tag - an integer in the range [0..nr_tags) (passed to + * tag_pool_init()), or otherwise -ENOSPC on allocation failure. + * + * Safe to be called from interrupt context (assuming it isn't passed + * __GFP_WAIT, of course). + * + * Will not fail if passed __GFP_WAIT. + */ +int percpu_ida_alloc(struct percpu_ida *pool, gfp_t gfp) +{ + DEFINE_WAIT(wait); + struct percpu_ida_cpu *tags; + unsigned long flags; + int tag; + + local_irq_save(flags); + tags = this_cpu_ptr(pool->tag_cpu); + + /* Fastpath */ + t...

...add_recvbuf_big(struct receive_queue *rq, gfp_t gfp) static int add_recvbuf_mergeable(struct receive_queue *rq, gfp_t gfp) { struct virtnet_info *vi = rq->vq->vdev->priv; - char *buf = NULL; - int err; + struct page_frag *alloc_frag; + char *buf; + int err, len, hole; - if (gfp & __GFP_WAIT) { - if (skb_page_frag_refill(MERGE_BUFFER_LEN, &vi->alloc_frag, - gfp)) { - buf = (char *)page_address(vi->alloc_frag.page) + - vi->alloc_frag.offset; - get_page(vi->alloc_frag.page); - vi->alloc_frag.offset += MERGE_BUFFER_LEN; - } - } else { - buf = netde...