Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 18 Oct 2001 18:05:30 -0200 (BRST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: [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/
|  |