On Sat, 2006-08-19 at 21:00 -0400, Douglas Gilbert wrote: > Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 10:41:09AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > >> ow, GFP_ATOMIC is bad. Can we avoid that? > > > > I believe all the GFP_ATOMIC calls in sg.c can be downgraded to > > GFP_KERNEL. > > Well, if memory serves, we have been around this loop > before. The GFP_ATOMIC flags were removed, users > complained about unexplained, unbounded waits unrelated > to the SCSI transport or device. this is not a fair answer... in a way GFP_ATOMIC is an antisocial behavior that should only be done when there is an absolute need. You'll dip into the VM reserves by using it after all! And for normal allocations, people who get the kernel to ask for a lot of memory need to do their fair share of waiting for memory, just to have write throttling work correctly... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
