Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:01:21 +0100 (BST) | From | Hugh Dickins <> | Subject | Re: What to expect with the 2.6 VM |
| |
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Andrew Morton wrote: > Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> wrote: > > > > described this way it sounds like NOFAIL imply a deadlock condition. > > NOFAIL is what 2.4 has always done, and has the deadlock opportunities > which you mention. The other modes allow the caller to say "don't try > forever".
__GFP_NOFAIL is also very badly named: patently it can and does fail, when PF_MEMALLOC or PF_MEMDIE or not __GFP_WAIT. Or is the idea that its users might as well oops when it does fail? Should its users be changed to use the less perniciously named __GFP_REPEAT, or should __alloc_pages be changed to deadlock more thoroughly?
Hugh
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |