On Mon 22-05-17 13:35:41, David Rientjes wrote: > On Mon, 22 May 2017, Mike Snitzer wrote: [...] > > While adding the __GFP_NOFAIL flag would serve to document expectations > > I'm left unconvinced that the memory allocator will _not fail_ for an > > order-0 page -- as Mikulas said most ioctls don't need more than 4K. > > __GFP_NOFAIL would make no sense in kvmalloc() calls, ever, it would never > fallback to vmalloc :) Sorry, I could have been more specific. You would have to opencode kvmalloc obviously. It is documented to not support this flag for the reasons you have mentioned above. > I'm hoping this can get merged during the 4.12 window to fix the broken > commit d224e9381897. I obviously disagree. Relying on memory reserves for _correctness_ is clearly broken by design, full stop. But it is dm code and you are going it is responsibility of the respective maintainers to support this code. -- 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>
