[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090414181632.GI955@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:16:32 -0400
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To: Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@...e.de>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...tin.ibm.com>, xfs-masters@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Handle bio_alloc failure
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 05:11:19PM +0530, Nikanth Karthikesan wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 April 2009 16:48:38 Jens Axboe wrote:
> >
> > It will not fail as long as __GFP_WAIT is set, which it is for all 6 of
> > your patches.
Um, before we take out the checks, can we please make sure this is a
guaranteed, documented behaviour? In include/linux/page_alloc.h,
__GFP_NOFAIL is documented as "will never fail", but it says
absolutely nothing about __GFP_WAIT.
Some day, someone will create a static checker that will flag warnings
when people fail to check for allocation failures, and it would be
good if the formal semantics for __GFP_WAIT, and hence for GFP_NOFS,
GFP_KERNEL, and GFP_USER, et. al. are defined.
We have code in fs/jbd2/transaction.c that calls kzalloc with
GFP_NOFS|__GFP_NOFAIL, since I and many other people had the
assumption that without __GFP_NOFAIL, an GFP_NOFS allocation could
very well fail.
Or is this special-case behaviour which bio_alloc() guarantees, but
not necessarily any other allocation function?
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists