lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] fork() failing
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:

> Imagine people changing the point where the
>
> if ((gfp_mask & __GFP_FAIL))
> return;
>
> check is done (inside the freeing routines).
>
> I would like to have a _defined_ meaning for a "fail easily" allocation,
> and a simple unique __GFP_FAIL flag can't give us that IMO.

Actually, I guess we could define this to be the same point
where we'd end up freeing memory in order to satisfy our
allocation.

This would result in __GFP_FAIL meaning "give me memory if
it's available, but don't waste time freeing memory if we
don't have enough free memory now".

Space-wise these semantics could change (say, pages_low
vs. pages_min), but they'll stay the same when you look at
"how hard to try" or "how much effort to spend".

regards,

Rik
--
DMCA, SSSCA, W3C? Who cares? http://thefreeworld.net/ (volunteers needed)

http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/

-
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 13:08    [W:0.053 / U:0.644 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site