On Mon 16-01-17 11:09:37, John Hubbard wrote: > > > On 01/16/2017 12:47 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Sun 15-01-17 20:34:13, John Hubbard wrote: [...] > > > Is that "Reclaim modifiers" line still true, or is it a leftover from an > > > earlier approach? I am having trouble reconciling it with rest of the > > > patchset, because: > > > > > > a) the flags argument below is effectively passed on to either kmalloc_node > > > (possibly adding, but not removing flags), or to __vmalloc_node_flags. > > > > The above only says thos are _unsupported_ - in other words the behavior > > is not defined. Even if flags are passed down to kmalloc resp. vmalloc > > it doesn't mean they are used that way. Remember that vmalloc uses > > some hardcoded GFP_KERNEL allocations. So while I could be really > > strict about this and mask away these flags I doubt this is worth the > > additional code. > > I do wonder about passing those flags through to kmalloc. Maybe it is worth > stripping out __GFP_NORETRY and __GFP_NOFAIL, after all. It provides some > insulation from any future changes to the implementation of kmalloc, and it > also makes the documentation more believable. I am not really convinced that we should take an extra steps for these flags. There are no existing users for those flags and new users should follow the documentation. -- 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>