Pekka wrote:
> As as side note, we already have __GFP_NOFAIL. How is it different
> from GFP_CRITICAL and why aren't we improving that?
Don't these two flags invoke two different mechanisms.
__GFP_NOFAIL can sleep for HZ/50 then retry, rather than return failure.
__GFP_CRITICAL can steal from the emergency pool rather than fail.
I would favor renaming at least the __GFP_CRITICAL to something
like __GFP_EMERGPOOL, to highlight the relevant distinction.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[email protected]> 1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
