[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
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

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".


DMCA, SSSCA, W3C? Who cares? (volunteers needed)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:08    [W:0.036 / U:1.168 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site