On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 10:03 AM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 1/15/25 03:17, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Use try_alloc_pages() and free_pages_nolock() > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c > > index 0daf098e3207..8bcf48e31a5a 100644 > > --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c > > @@ -582,14 +582,14 @@ int bpf_map_alloc_pages(const struct bpf_map *map, gfp_t gfp, int nid, > > This makes the gfp parameter unused? And the callers are passing GFP_KERNEL > anyway? Isn't try_alloc_pages() rather useful for some context that did not > even try to allocate until now, but now it could? Correct. gfp arg is unused and currently it's only called from sleepable bpf kfunc with GFP_KERNEL. I have more patches on top that change all that: remove gfp argument, etc. Just didn't send them as part of this set, since it's all bpf internal stuff.
