Hi,
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?
On 1/27/06, Paul Jackson <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
Yeah you're right. __GFP_NOFAIL guarantees to never fail but it
doesn't guarantee to actually succeed either. I think the suggested
semantics for __GFP_EMERGPOOL are that while it can fail, it tries to
avoid that by dipping into page reserves. However, I do still think
it's a bad idea to allow the slab allocator to steal whole pages for
critical allocations because in low-memory condition, it should be
fairly easy to exhaust the reserves and waste most of that memory at
the same time.
Pekka
-
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]
