On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > 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).
>
[trimmed the newsgroups from the reply, not sure what the point is?]
> Caller should restore old gfp_mask instead of __GFP_BITS_MASK in case of
> nesting.And how do we care of atomic context?
>
Eek, I'm hoping these aren't going to be nested but sure that seems
appropraite if they are. (I'm also hoping these will only be either
__GFP_HIGH or __GFP_BITS_MASK and no other combinations.)
Forcing atomic context would just be set_current_gfp_allowed(__GFP_HIGH).
--
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>