On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > Or do we instead do this:
> >
> > - some_function(foo, bar, GFP_NOIO);
> > + old_gfp = set_current_gfp(GFP_NOIO);
> > + some_function(foo, bar);
> > + set_current_gfp(old_gfp);
> >
> > So the rule is "if the code was using an explicit GFP_foo then convert
> > it to use set_current_gfp(). If the code was receiving a gfp_t
> > variable from the caller then delete that arg".
> >
> > Or something like that. It's all too hopelessly impractical to bother
> > discussing - 20 years too late!
> >
> >
> > otoh, maybe a constrained version of this could be used to address the
> > vmalloc() problem alone.
> >
>
> Yes, I think it will be good start.
>
Maybe a per-thread_info variant of gfp_allowed_mask? So Andrew's
set_current_gfp() becomes set_current_gfp_allowed() that does
void set_current_gfp_allowed(gfp_t gfp_mask)
{
current->gfp_allowed = gfp_mask & gfp_allowed_mask;
}
and then the page allocator does
gfp_mask &= current->gfp_allowed;
rather than how it currently does
gfp_mask &= gfp_allowed_mask;
and then the caller of set_current_gfp_allowed() cleans up with
set_current_gfp_allowed(__GFP_BITS_MASK).
--
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>