[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151201003347.GA653@swordfish>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 09:33:47 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc: "kyeongdon.kim" <kyeongdon.kim@....com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()
On (12/01/15 08:18), Minchan Kim wrote:
[..]
> > As you know, if there is 'null' return, this function is called again to
> > get a memory in while() loop. I just checked this one with printk().
> >
> > If you guys don't mind, I'll test more with trace log to check time delay.
>
> No problem.
>
> >
> > However, If this is fully expectable status to you.
> > I think I don't need to do it.
>
> It's not what I expected. Actually, I thought failure of vmalloc
> in that place should be *really really* rare. I think it's caused by
> __GFP_NOMEMALLOC so I want to see test result without the flag.
hm, agree. otherwise the whole vmalloc() fallback thing adds a
little value. additional streams are really not that important
to waste emergency memory. a stream, once allocated, stays
forever (until user decrease the ->max_strm).
> Thanks for the careful test!
yes, thank you Kyeongdon.
-ss
--
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