lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jul]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:46    [W:0.153 / U:0.204 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site