[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180529170338.7brp2m2k4gfqwf64@linux-n805>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 10:03:38 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
tgraf@...g.ch, manfred@...orfullife.com,
guillaume.knispel@...ersonicimagine.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] lib/rhashtable: guarantee initial hashtable
allocation
On Mon, 28 May 2018, Herbert Xu wrote:
>> + /*
>> + * This is api initialization and thus we need to guarantee the
>> + * initial rhashtable allocation. Upon failure, retry with a
>> + * smallest possible size, otherwise we exhaust our options with
>> + * __GFP_NOFAIL.
>> + */
>> tbl = bucket_table_alloc(ht, size, GFP_KERNEL);
>> - if (tbl == NULL)
>> - return -ENOMEM;
>> + if (unlikely(tbl == NULL)) {
>> + size = HASH_MIN_SIZE;
>> +
>> + tbl = bucket_table_alloc(ht, size, GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (tbl == NULL)
>> + tbl = bucket_table_alloc_retry(ht, size, GFP_KERNEL);
>> + }
>
>Perhaps you should also explain here why we don't just try the
>minimum size with __GFP_NOFAIL as the second step rather than the
>third.
Please see the comment above, I try to explain the rationale.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists