[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090619232336.GA2442@elf.ucw.cz>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:23:37 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, npiggin@...e.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] slab,slub: ignore __GFP_WAIT if we're booting or
suspending
On Sat 2009-06-20 08:27:29, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 16:59 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> > Ok... GFP_KERNEL allocations normally don't fail; now they
> > will. Should we at least force access to atomic reserves in such case?
>
> No. First, code that assumes GFP_KERNEL don't fail is stupid. Any
> allocation should always be assumed to potentially fail.
Stupid, yes. Uncommon? Not sure.
> Then, if you start failing allocations at boot time, then you aren't
> going anywhere are you ?
Exactly. So boot code should have access to all the memory, right?
Setting some aside for GFP_ATOMIC does not make sense in that context.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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