On Fri 07-08-15 11:10:03, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> index 257283f..52b9025 100644
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -1364,6 +1364,8 @@ static struct page *allocate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, 
> gfp_t flags, int node)
>        * so we fall-back to the minimum order allocation.
>        */
>       alloc_gfp = (flags | __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NORETRY) & ~__GFP_NOFAIL;
> +     if ((alloc_gfp & __GFP_WAIT) && oo_order(oo) > oo_order(s->min))
> +             alloc_gfp = (alloc_gfp | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC) & ~__GFP_WAIT;

Wouldn't it be preferable to "fix" the __GFP_WAIT behavior than spilling
__GFP_NOMEMALLOC around the kernel? GFP flags are getting harder and
harder to use right and that is a signal we should thing about it and
unclutter the current state.

>  
>       page = alloc_slab_page(s, alloc_gfp, node, oo);
>       if (unlikely(!page)) {
> -- 
> 1.9.1

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/

Reply via email to