On Fri 07-08-15 11:10:03, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> index 257283f..52b9025 100644
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -1364,6 +1364,8 @@ static struct page *allocate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags, int node)
> * so we fall-back to the minimum order allocation.
> */
> alloc_gfp = (flags | __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NORETRY) & ~__GFP_NOFAIL;
> + if ((alloc_gfp & __GFP_WAIT) && oo_order(oo) > oo_order(s->min))
> + alloc_gfp = (alloc_gfp | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC) & ~__GFP_WAIT;
Wouldn't it be preferable to "fix" the __GFP_WAIT behavior than spilling
__GFP_NOMEMALLOC around the kernel? GFP flags are getting harder and
harder to use right and that is a signal we should thing about it and
unclutter the current state.
>
> page = alloc_slab_page(s, alloc_gfp, node, oo);
> if (unlikely(!page)) {
> --
> 1.9.1
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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>