[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+KHdyVdrfLPNJESEYzxfF+bksFpKGCd8vH=NqdwfPOLV9ZO8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 17:00:28 +0200
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/3] mm/vmalloc: add support for __GFP_NOFAIL
>
> On Wed 20-10-21 16:29:14, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 4:06 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > > As I've said I am OK with either of the two. Do you or anybody have any
> > > preference? Without any explicit event to wake up for neither of the two
> > > is more than just an optimistic retry.
> > >
> > From power perspective it is better to have a delay, so i tend to say
> > that delay is better.
>
> I am a terrible random number generator. Can you give me a number
> please?
>
Well, we can start from one jiffy so it is one timer tick: schedule_timeout(1)
--
Uladzislau Rezki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists