[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090624105517.904f93da.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:55:17 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: upcoming kerneloops.org item: get_page_from_freelist
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:55:24 +0300 Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Andrew Morton<akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > Well yes. __Using GFP_NOFAIL on a higher-order allocation is bad. __This
> > patch is there to find, name, shame, blame and hopefully fix callers.
> >
> > A fix for cxgb3 is in the works. __slub's design is a big problem.
> >
> > But we'll probably have to revert it for 2.6.31 :(
>
> How is SLUB's design a problem here? Can't we just clear GFP_NOFAIL
> from the higher order allocation and thus force GFP_NOFAIL allocations
> to use the minimum required order?
That could then lead to the __GFP_NOFAIL allocation attempt returning
NULL. But the callers cannot handle that and probably don't even test
for it - this is why they used __GFP_NOFAIL.
I dunno. Mabe we should just remove __GFP_NOFAIL and convert callers back
to open-coded infinite retry loops. Hardly an improvement, but it at
least would stop people naively using __GFP_NOFAIL.
--
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