On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 08:41:42PM GMT, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 03:39:47PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > Given the amount of plumbing required here, it's clear that passing gfp > > flags is the less safe way of doing it, and this really does belong in > > the allocation context. > > > > Failure to pass gfp flags correctly (which we know is something that > > happens today, e.g. vmalloc -> pte allocation) means you're introducing > > a deadlock. > > The problem with vmalloc is that the page table allocation _doesn't_ > take a GFP parameter. yeah, I know. I posted patches to plumb it through, which were nacked by Linus. And we're trying to get away from passing gfp flags directly, are we not? I just don't buy the GFP_NOFAIL unsafety argument.
