linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: make it clear that gfp reclaim modifiers are valid only for sleepable allocations

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 3 Apr 2020 12:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: make it clear that gfp reclaim modifiers are
 valid only for sleepable allocations

On Fri, 3 Apr 2020, Michal Hocko wrote:

> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> 
> While it might be really clear to MM developers that gfp reclaim
> modifiers are applicable only to sleepable allocations (those with
> __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM) it seems that actual users of the API are not
> always sure. Make it explicit that they are not applicable for
> GFP_NOWAIT or GFP_ATOMIC allocations which are the most commonly used
> non-sleepable allocation masks.
> 
> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>

Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>