On Fri 15-04-16 14:41:29, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2016, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > On Fri 15-04-16 08:29:28, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2016, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > copy_params seems to be little bit confused about which allocation flags
> > > > to use. It enforces GFP_NOIO even though it uses
> > > > memalloc_noio_{save,restore} which enforces GFP_NOIO at the page
> > >
> > > memalloc_noio_{save,restore} is used because __vmalloc is flawed and
> > > doesn't respect GFP_NOIO properly (it doesn't use gfp flags when
> > > allocating pagetables).
> >
> > Yes and there are no plans to change __vmalloc to properly propagate gfp
> > flags through the whole call chain and that is why we have
> > memalloc_noio thingy. If that ever changes later the GFP_NOIO can be
> > added in favor of memalloc_noio API. Both are clearly redundant.
> > --
> > Michal Hocko
> > SUSE Labs
>
> You could move memalloc_noio_{save,restore} to __vmalloc. Something like
>
> if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_IO))
> noio_flag = memalloc_noio_save();
> ...
> if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_IO))
> memalloc_noio_restore(noio_flag);
>
> That would be better than repeating this hack in every __vmalloc caller
> that need GFP_NOIO.
It is not my intention to change __vmalloc behavior. If you strongly
oppose the GFP_NOIO change I can drop it from the patch. It is
__GFP_REPEAT which I am after.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>