> Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > NAK, I really utterly dislike that inatomic argument. The alloc side > > doesn't function in atomic context either. Please keep the thing > > symmetric in that regards. > > Excuse me. kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL) may sleep (and therefore cannot be used in > atomic context). However, kfree() for memory allocated with kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL) > never sleep (and therefore can be used in atomic context). > Why kmalloc() and kfree() are NOT kept symmetric? In kmalloc case, we need to consider both kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL)/kfree() pair and kmalloc(GFP_ATOMIC)/kfree() pair. latter is mainly used on atomic context. To make kfree() atomic help to keep the implementation simple. But kvmalloc don't have GFP_ATOMIC feautre. that's big difference. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>