[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMbhsRS+-jn7d1bTd4F0_RB9860iWjOHLfOkDsqLfWEUbR3TYA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 23:16:55 -0700
From: Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: avoid livelock on !__GFP_FS allocations
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:12 PM, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, David Rientjes wrote:
>
>> Ok, so __GFP_NORETRY it is. Just make sure that when
>> pm_restrict_gfp_mask() masks off __GFP_IO and __GFP_FS that it also sets
>> __GFP_NORETRY even though the name of the function no longer seems
>> appropriate anymore.
>>
>
> Or, rather, when pm_restrict_gfp_mask() clears __GFP_IO and __GFP_FS that
> it also has the same behavior as __GFP_NORETRY in should_alloc_retry() by
> setting a variable in file scope.
>
Why do you prefer that over adding a gfp_required_mask?
--
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