On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The patch seems reasonable to me. I'd like to see some examples of
> these resume-time callsite which are performing the GFP_KERNEL
> allocations, please. You have found some kernel bugs, so those should
> be fully described.
There are two examples on 2/3 and 3/3 of the patchset, see below link:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=135040325717213&w=2
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=135040327317222&w=2
Sorry for not Cc them to linux-mm because I am afraid of making noise
in mm list.
>
> This is just awful. Why oh why do we write code in macros when we have
> a nice C compiler?
The two helpers are following style of local_irq_save() and
local_irq_restore(), so that people can use them easily, that is
why I define them as macro instead of inline.
>
> These can all be done as nice, clean, type-safe, documented C
> functions. And if they can be done that way, they *should* be done
> that way!
>
> And I suggest that a better name for memalloc_noio_save() is
> memalloc_noio_set(). So this:
IMO, renaming as memalloc_noio_set() might not be better than _save
because the _set name doesn't indicate that the flag should be stored first.
>
> static inline unsigned memalloc_noio(void)
> {
> return current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC_NOIO;
> }
>
> static inline unsigned memalloc_noio_set(unsigned flags)
> {
> unsigned ret = memalloc_noio();
>
> current->flags |= PF_MEMALLOC_NOIO;
> return ret;
> }
>
> static inline unsigned memalloc_noio_restore(unsigned flags)
> {
> current->flags = (current->flags & ~PF_MEMALLOC_NOIO) | flags;
> }
>
> (I think that's correct? It's probably more efficient this way).
Yes, it is correct and more clean, and I will take it.
Thanks,
--
Ming Lei
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>