[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A054156.60501@cs.helsinki.fi>
Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 11:39:50 +0300
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: gorcunov@...nvz.org, kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, mel@....ul.ie,
cl@...ux-foundation.org, riel@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, rientjes@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: Introduce GFP_PANIC for early-boot allocations
Hi Andrew,
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 08 May 2009 18:10:28 +0300
> Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi> wrote:
>
>> +#define GFP_PANIC (__GFP_NOFAIL | __GFP_NORETRY)
>
> urgh, you have to be kidding me. This significantly worsens complexity
> and risk in core MM and it's just yuk.
>
> I think we can justify pulling such dopey party tricks to save
> pageframe space, or bits in page.flags and such. But just to save a
> scrap of memory which would have been released during boot anwyay?
> Don't think so.
No, I wasn't kidding and I don't agree that it "significantly worsens
complexity". The point is not to save memory but to clearly annotate
those special call-sites that really don't need to check for out-of-memory.
But anyway, if you don't want it, then I guess it stays out of the kernel.
Andrew Morton wrote:
> I'd suggest panic_if_null(). Or just leave everything alone - it's
> hardly a pressing problem.
It has no advantage over the current BUG_ON() pattern.
Pekka
--
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