On Fri 06-01-17 13:09:36, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 01/04/2017 07:12 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > diff --git a/mm/util.c b/mm/util.c
> > index 8e4ea6cbe379..a2bfb85e60e5 100644
> > --- a/mm/util.c
> > +++ b/mm/util.c
> > @@ -348,8 +348,13 @@ void *kvmalloc_node(size_t size, gfp_t flags, int node)
> > * Make sure that larger requests are not too disruptive - no OOM
> > * killer and no allocation failure warnings as we have a fallback
> > */
> > - if (size > PAGE_SIZE)
> > - kmalloc_flags |= __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN;
> > + if (size > PAGE_SIZE) {
> > + kmalloc_flags |= __GFP_NOWARN;
> > +
> > + if (!(kmalloc_flags & __GFP_REPEAT) ||
> > + (size <= PAGE_SIZE << PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER))
> > + kmalloc_flags |= __GFP_NORETRY;
>
> I think this would be more understandable for me if it was written in
> the opposite way, i.e. "if we have costly __GFP_REPEAT allocation, don't
> use __GFP_NORETRY",
Dunno, doesn't look much simpler to me
kmalloc_flags |= __GFP_NORETRY;
if ((kmalloc_flags & __GFP_REPEAT) &&
(size > PAGE_SIZE << PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)) {
kmalloc_flags &= ~__GFP_NORETRY;
}
> but nevermind, seems correct to me wrt current
> handling of both flags in the page allocator. And it serves as a good
> argument to have this wrapper in mm/ as we are hopefully more likely to
> keep it working as intended with future changes, than all the opencoded
> variants.
>
> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
Thanks!
--
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>