On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 07:12:33AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > That'd be a nice start, though it doesn't address callers of > vm_map_ram() which also has hard-coded GFP_KERNEL allocation masks > for various allocations. ... all 3 of them, that is - XFS, android/ion/ion_heap.c and v4l2-core. 5 call sites total. Adding a gfp_t argument to those shouldn't be an issue... BTW, far scarier one is not GFP_NOFS or GFP_IO - there's a weird caller passing GFP_ATOMIC to __vmalloc(), for no reason I can guess. _That_ really couldn't be handled without passing gfp_t to page allocation primitives, but I very much doubt that it's needed there at all; it's in alloc_large_system_hash() and I really cannot imagine a situation when it would be used in e.g. a nonblocking context. Folks, what is that one for? -- 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>