[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151124003500.GD3882@blaptop>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 09:35:00 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Kyeongdon Kim <kyeongdon.kim@....com>, ngupta@...are.org,
sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 03:40:29PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 08:28:57 +0900 Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > > What's the reasoning behind the modification to the gfp flags?
> > >
> > > It clears __GFP_FS, __GFP_IO and even __GFP_WAIT. I suspect the latter
> > > two (at least) can be retained. And given that vmalloc() uses
> >
> > This function is used in swapout and fs write path so we couldn't use
> > those flags.
>
> We can use __GFP_RECLAIM (used to be __GFP_WAIT). That permits the
> allocation to wait for in-flight IO to complete and to reclaim clean
> pagecache.
Generally, you're right but in case of zram, it would be unfortunate.
It would be void *most of time* because it is called in reclaim context
and reclaim path bails out to avoid recursion of direct reclaim
by PF_MEMALLOC without trying reclaim.
However, the reason I said *most of time* is we has another context
the funcion could be called.
"disksize_store"->zcomp_create
In the place, we should make sure the successful allocation to work
zram at least so that path should use another gfp.
I will work for that.
Thanks, Andrew,
>
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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