On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:46 PM Christian König ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com wrote:

Am 13.01.21 um 14:27 schrieb Daniel Vetter:

...

On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 02:13:25PM +0100, Christian König wrote:

...

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@amd.com

Needs Fixes: line and References to the GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT report from Hans and for the chromium report for the mmap fail.

Which tag should I use for this? Just Link:?

Link: is for the patch submission itself (to link to archives with the review&discussions), usually it's References is for bug reports and anything else. I think at least. You can have multiple Link: tags too, if you record all the previous submissions, that's a bit up to subsystems and how they all roll. -Daniel

...

With those:

Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch

Also I guess really time for me to stitch together that hack to catch dma-buf sglist struct page abusers ...

Oh, yes please.

Christian.

...

-Daniel

...

---

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);

-- 2.25.1

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@amd.com

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);