On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 09:25:37 -0500 (CDT) Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > What's the reason for returning a partial result when ENOMEM? Some > > callers will throw away the partial result and simply fail out. If a > > caller attempts to go ahead and use the partial result then great, but > > you can bet that nobody will actually runtime test this situation, so > > the interface is an invitation for us to release partially-tested code > > into the wild. > > Just rely on the fact that small allocations never fail? The caller get > all the requested objects if the function returns? I'd suggest the latter: either the callee successfully allocates all the requested objects or it fails. > > Instead of the above, did you consider doing > > > > int __weak kmem_cache_alloc_array(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags, size_t nr, > > > > ? > > > > This way we save a level of function call and all that wrapper code in > > the allocators simply disappears. > > I think we will need the auxiliary function in the common code later > because that allows the allocations to only do the allocations that > can be optimized and for the rest just fall back to the generic > implementations. There may be situations in which the optimizations wont > work. For SLUB this may be the case f.e. if debug options are enabled. hm, OK. The per-allocator wrappers could be made static inline in .h if that makes sense. With the current code, gcc should be able to convert the call into a tailcall. <checks> nope. kmem_cache_free_array: pushq %rbp # movq %rsp, %rbp #, call __kmem_cache_free_array # leave ret stupid gcc. -- 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>