Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] mm: clarify nofail memory allocation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu 22-08-24 06:59:08, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 at 20:41, Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > One potential approach could be to rename GFP_NOFAIL to
> > GFP_NOFAIL_FOR_SMALL_ALLOC, specifically for smaller allocations, and
> > to clear this flag for larger allocations.
> 
> Yes, that sounds like a good way to make sure people don't blame the
> MM layer when they themselves were the cause of problems.

The reality disagrees because there is a real demand for real GFP_NOFAIL
semantic. By that I do not mean arbitrary requests and sure GFP_NOFAIL
for higher orders is really hard to achieve but kvmalloc GFP_NOFAIL for
anything larger than PAGE_SIZE is doable without a considerable burden
on the MM end.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs




[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux