>
> I would really prefer if this was not the main point of arguing here.
> Unless you feel strongly about msleep I would go with schedule_timeout
> here because this is a more widely used interface in the mm code and
> also because I feel like that relying on the rounding behavior is just
> subtle. Here is what I have staged now.
>
I have a preference but do not have a strong opinion here. You can go
either way you want.
>
> Are there any other concerns you see with this or other patches in the
> series?
>
it is better if you could send a new vX version because it is hard to
combine every "folded"
into one solid commit. One comment below:
> ---
> commit c1a7e40e6b56fed5b9e716de7055b77ea29d89d0
> Author: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed Oct 20 10:12:45 2021 +0200
>
> fold me "mm/vmalloc: add support for __GFP_NOFAIL"
>
> Add a short sleep before retrying. 1 jiffy is a completely random
> timeout. Ideally the retry would wait for an explicit event - e.g.
> a change to the vmalloc space change if the failure was caused by
> the space fragmentation or depletion. But there are multiple different
> reasons to retry and this could become much more complex. Keep the retry
> simple for now and just sleep to prevent from hogging CPUs.
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> index 0fb5413d9239..a866db0c9c31 100644
> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -2944,6 +2944,7 @@ static void *__vmalloc_area_node(struct vm_struct *area, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> do {
> ret = vmap_pages_range(addr, addr + size, prot, area->pages,
> page_shift);
> + schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
>
We do not want to schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1); every time.
Only when an error is detected.
--
Uladzislau Rezki
