On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 08:52:37PM +0000, Drokin, Oleg wrote: > > On May 1, 2015, at 4:49 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 08:36:05PM +0000, Simmons, James A. wrote: > >>> We are hopefully going to get rid of OBD_ALLOC_LARGE() as well, though. > >>> > >>> It's simple enough to write a function: > >>> > >>> void *obd_zalloc(size_t size) > >>> { > >>> if (size > 4 * PAGE_CACHE_SIZE) > >>> return vzalloc(size); > >>> else > >>> return kmalloc(size, GFP_NOFS); > >>> } > >>> > >>> Except, huh? Shouldn't we be using GFP_NOFS for the vzalloc() side? > >>> There was some discussion of that GFP_NOFS was a bit buggy back in 2010 > >>> (http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=128942194520631&w=4) but the current > >>> lustre code doesn't try to pass GFP_NOFS. > >> > >> The version in the upstream client is out of date. The current macro in the Intel master > >> Branch is: > > > > That's not helpful at all, why do we even have an in-kernel version of > > this code if you don't do your development in the kernel? > > > > Please sync with the kernel tree very soon, or I'm just going to delete > > this whole thing. This is getting _really_ frustrating. > > The patch was submitted. > But it depends on a symbol that's not exported. > I was not able to change that. > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mm/msg83997.html But you were given a hint on how to change that :) Anyway, I'd recommend switching to what ext4 and xfs does, as you point out in another email in this thread, it looks a lot better overall. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html