On Sat 14-01-17 12:01:50, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2017/01/13 2:29, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Ilya has noticed that I've screwed up some k[zc]alloc conversions and > > didn't use the kvzalloc. This is an updated patch with some acks > > collected on the way > > --- > > From a7b89c6d0a3c685045e37740c8f97b065f37e0a4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> > > Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 13:30:32 +0100 > > Subject: [PATCH] treewide: use kv[mz]alloc* rather than opencoded variants > > > > There are many code paths opencoding kvmalloc. Let's use the helper > > instead. The main difference to kvmalloc is that those users are usually > > not considering all the aspects of the memory allocator. E.g. allocation > > requests < 64kB are basically never failing and invoke OOM killer to > > Isn't this "requests <= 32kB" because allocation requests for 33kB will be > rounded up to 64kB? Yes > Same for "smaller than 64kB" in PATCH 6/6. But strictly speaking, isn't > it bogus to refer actual size because PAGE_SIZE is not always 4096? This is just an example and I didn't want to pull PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER here. So I've instead fixed the wording to: " E.g. allocation requests <= 32kB (with 4kB pages) are basically never failing and invoke OOM killer to satisfy the allocation. " -- 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>