On Wed 01-04-20 14:32:30, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 09:09:58AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 31-03-20 18:12:15, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > > > > > > __GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_HIGH is the way to get an additional access to > > > > memory reserves regarless of the sleeping status. > > > > > > > Michal, just one question here regarding proposed flags. Can we also > > > tight it with __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL flag? Means it also can repeat a few > > > times in order to increase the chance of being success. > > > > yes, __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL is perfectly valid with __GFP_ATOMIC. Please > > note that __GFP_ATOMIC, despite its name, doesn't imply an atomic > > allocation which cannot sleep. Quite confusing, I know. A much better > > name would be __GFP_RESERVES or something like that. > > > OK. Then we can use GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL to try in more harder > way. Please note the difference between __GFP_ATOMIC and GFP_ATOMIC. The later is a highlevel flag to use for atomic contexts. The former is an explicit way to give an access to memory reserves. I am not familiar with your code but if you have an existing gfp context coming from the caller then just do (gfp | __GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_HIGH | __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL). If you do not have any gfp then decide based on whether the current context is allowed to sleep gfp = GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_HIGH | __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL; if (!sleepable) gfp &= ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM; -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
