[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180815093032.GQ32645@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 11:30:32 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] docs/core-api: add memory allocation guide
On Wed 15-08-18 12:04:29, Mike Rapoport wrote:
[...]
> How about:
>
> * If the allocation is performed from an atomic context, e.g interrupt
> handler, use ``GFP_NOWARN``. This flag prevents direct reclaim and IO or
> filesystem operations. Consequently, under memory pressure ``GFP_NOWARN``
> allocation is likely to fail.
s@...ARN@...AIT@ I guess. Looks good otherwise. I would even go and
mention GFP_NOWARN once you brought it up. Allocations which have a
reasonable fallback should be using NOWARN.
> * If you think that accessing memory reserves is justified and the kernel
> will be stressed unless allocation succeeds, you may use ``GFP_ATOMIC``.
OK otherwise.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists