(2012/04/25 8:55), KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 7:49 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki > <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> (2012/04/25 6:30), Andrew Morton wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:48:29 +1000 >>> Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>>> Hmm, there are several places to use GFP_NOIO and GFP_NOFS even, GFP_ATOMIC. >>>>> I believe it's not trivial now. >>>> >>>> They're all buggy then. Unfortunately not through any real fault of their own. >>> >>> There are gruesome problems in block/blk-throttle.c (thread "mempool, >>> percpu, blkcg: fix percpu stat allocation and remove stats_lock"). It >>> wants to do an alloc_percpu()->vmalloc() from the IO submission path, >>> under GFP_NOIO. >>> >>> Changing vmalloc() to take a gfp_t does make lots of sense, although I >>> worry a bit about making vmalloc() easier to use! >>> >>> I do wonder whether the whole scheme of explicitly passing a gfp_t was >>> a mistake and that the allocation context should be part of the task >>> context. ie: pass the allocation mode via *current. >> >> yes...that's very interesting. > > I think GFP_ATOMIC is used non task context too. ;-) Hmm, in interrupt context or some ? Can't we detect it ? Thanks, -Kame -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>