On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon 28-05-18 10:23:07, Shakeel Butt wrote: >> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 2:11 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Though is there a precedence where the broken feature is not fixed >> because an alternative is available? > > Well, I can see how breaking GFP_NOFAIL semantic is problematic, on the > other hand we keep saying that kmem accounting in v1 is hard usable and > strongly discourage people from using it. Sure we can add the code which > handles _this_ particular case but that wouldn't make the whole thing > more usable I strongly suspect. Maybe I am wrong and you can provide > some specific examples. Is GFP_NOFAIL that common to matter? > > In any case we should balance between the code maintainability here. > Adding more cruft into the allocator path is not free. > We do not use kmem limits internally and this is something I found through code inspection. If this patch is increasing the cost of code maintainability I am fine with dropping it but at least there should a comment saying that kmem limits are broken and no need fix. Shakeel
