[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200401123230.GB32593@pc636>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 14:32:30 +0200
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
rcu@...r.kernel.org, willy@...radead.org, peterz@...radead.org,
neilb@...e.com, vbabka@...e.cz, mgorman@...e.de,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] rcu/tree: Use GFP_MEMALLOC for alloc memory to free
memory pattern
On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 09:09:58AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 31-03-20 18:12:15, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > >
> > > __GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_HIGH is the way to get an additional access to
> > > memory reserves regarless of the sleeping status.
> > >
> > Michal, just one question here regarding proposed flags. Can we also
> > tight it with __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL flag? Means it also can repeat a few
> > times in order to increase the chance of being success.
>
> yes, __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL is perfectly valid with __GFP_ATOMIC. Please
> note that __GFP_ATOMIC, despite its name, doesn't imply an atomic
> allocation which cannot sleep. Quite confusing, I know. A much better
> name would be __GFP_RESERVES or something like that.
>
OK. Then we can use GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL to try in more harder
way.
Thanks!
--
Vlad Rezki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists