lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Dec]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 04:15:42PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (12/01/15 15:35), Kyeongdon Kim wrote:
> [..]
> > @test #4
> > kmalloc(f)
> > __vmalloc(f)
> > // cannot find failure both until now
> >
> > log message (test #4) :
> > <4>[ 641.440468][7] KDKIM: zcomp_lz4_create: 24: ret = ffffffc002190000
> > <snip>
> > <4>[ 922.182980][7] KDKIM: zcomp_lz4_create: 24: ret = ffffffc002208000
> > <snip>
> > <4>[ 923.197593][7] KDKIM: zcomp_lz4_create: 24: ret = ffffffc002020000
> > <snip>
> > <4>[ 939.813499][7] KDKIM: zcomp_lz4_create: 24: ret = ffffffc0020a0000
>
> Thanks!
>
> > So,is there another problem if we remove the flag from both sides?
> >
>
> Technically, '~__GFP_NOMEMALLOC' is what we've been doing for some time (well,
> always); and, as Minchan noted, zsmalloc does not depend on emergency pools.
>
> I vote for removal of __GFP_NOMEMALLOC from both kmalloc() and __vmalloc().
>
> (user can make ->max_strm big enough to deplete emergency mem; but I tend to
> ignore it).
>
> Minchan?

Agree. Do you mind resending patches? :)

Thanks.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-12-01 09:41    [W:0.120 / U:1.616 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site