| Message ID | 20211213122712.23805-1-bhe@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Avoid requesting page from DMA zone when no managed pages | expand |
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 20:27:07 +0800 Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> wrote: > Background information can be checked in cover letter of v2 RESEND POST > as below: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211207030750.30824-1-bhe@redhat.com/T/#u Please include all relevant info right here, in the [0/n]. For a number of reasons, one of which is that the text is more likely to be up to date as the patchset evolves. It's unusual that this patchset has two non-urgent patches and the final three patches are cc:stable. It makes one worry that patches 3-5 might have dependencies on 1-2. Also, I'd expect to merge the three -stable patches during 5.16-rcX which means I have to reorder things, redo changelogs, update links and blah blah. So can I ask that you redo all of this as two patch series? A 3-patch series which is targeted at -stable, followed by a separate two-patch series which is targeted at 5.17-rc1. Each series with its own fully prepared [0/n] cover. Thanks.
On 12/13/21 at 01:05pm, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 20:27:07 +0800 Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> wrote: > > > Background information can be checked in cover letter of v2 RESEND POST > > as below: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211207030750.30824-1-bhe@redhat.com/T/#u > > Please include all relevant info right here, in the [0/n]. For a > number of reasons, one of which is that the text is more likely to be > up to date as the patchset evolves. > > It's unusual that this patchset has two non-urgent patches and the > final three patches are cc:stable. It makes one worry that patches 3-5 > might have dependencies on 1-2. Also, I'd expect to merge the three > -stable patches during 5.16-rcX which means I have to reorder things, > redo changelogs, update links and blah blah. > > So can I ask that you redo all of this as two patch series? A 3-patch > series which is targeted at -stable, followed by a separate two-patch > series which is targeted at 5.17-rc1. Each series with its own fully > prepared [0/n] cover. Sure, will do. Sorry for the mess. Before the 3-patch series posting, I may need to continue discussing and making clear if the current patch 5/5 is a good fix, or whether we need change to take other solution. So I will take the first two patches out and post them.
Background information can be checked in cover letter of v2 RESEND POST as below: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211207030750.30824-1-bhe@redhat.com/T/#u Changelog: v2-Resend -> v3: - Re-implement has_managed_dma() according to David's suggestion. - Add Fixes tag and cc stable. v2->v2 RESEND: - John pinged to push the repost of this patchset. So fix one typo of suject of patch 3/5; Fix a building error caused by mix declaration in patch 5/5. Both of them are found by John from his testing. - Rewrite cover letter to add more information. v1->v2: Change to check if managed DMA zone exists. If DMA zone has managed pages, go further to request page from DMA zone to initialize. Otherwise, just skip to initialize stuffs which need pages from DMA zone. V2 RESEND post: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211207030750.30824-1-bhe@redhat.com/T/#u v2 post: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210810094835.13402-1-bhe@redhat.com/T/#u v1 post: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210624052010.5676-1-bhe@redhat.com/T/#u Baoquan He (5): docs: kernel-parameters: Update to reflect the current default size of atomic pool dma-pool: allow user to disable atomic pool mm_zone: add function to check if managed dma zone exists dma/pool: create dma atomic pool only if dma zone has managed pages mm/slub: do not create dma-kmalloc if no managed pages in DMA zone Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 5 ++++- include/linux/mmzone.h | 9 +++++++++ kernel/dma/pool.c | 11 +++++++---- mm/page_alloc.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ mm/slab_common.c | 9 +++++++++ 5 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)