[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F973BF2.4080406@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 08:49:06 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] propagate gfp_t to page table alloc functions
(2012/04/25 6:30), Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:48:29 +1000
> Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com> wrote:
>
>>> Hmm, there are several places to use GFP_NOIO and GFP_NOFS even, GFP_ATOMIC.
>>> I believe it's not trivial now.
>>
>> They're all buggy then. Unfortunately not through any real fault of their own.
>
> There are gruesome problems in block/blk-throttle.c (thread "mempool,
> percpu, blkcg: fix percpu stat allocation and remove stats_lock"). It
> wants to do an alloc_percpu()->vmalloc() from the IO submission path,
> under GFP_NOIO.
>
> Changing vmalloc() to take a gfp_t does make lots of sense, although I
> worry a bit about making vmalloc() easier to use!
>
> I do wonder whether the whole scheme of explicitly passing a gfp_t was
> a mistake and that the allocation context should be part of the task
> context. ie: pass the allocation mode via *current.
yes...that's very interesting.
Regards,
-Kame
--
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