On 09/12/15 01:28, Shaohua Li wrote: > It does remove the scary __GFP_NOFAIL, but the approach is essentially > idential to a 'retry after allocation failure'. Why not just let the mm > (with __GFP_NOFAIL) to do the retry then? Because that's almost as dangerous? Forgive me if I'm talking out of my hat, but I remember an article on lwn reasonably recently about kernel memory allocation, and it was something to do with small allocations never failing and the actual behaviour being COMPLETELY different to what most users THINK is happening. (iirc, the actual behaviour was NOFAIL, whether it was requested or not, so if you think that adding NOFAIL to your code is going to help, you may be in for a nasty shock.) Whatever, if the disk code is prone to deadlocks, and it's calling memory code which is prone to deadlocks, then better safe than sorry... Cheers, Wol -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
