Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 27 Jan 2006 02:10:50 -0800 | From | Paul Jackson <> | Subject | Re: [patch 0/9] Critical Mempools |
| |
Pekka wrote: > As as side note, we already have __GFP_NOFAIL. How is it different > from GFP_CRITICAL and why aren't we improving that?
Don't these two flags invoke two different mechanisms. __GFP_NOFAIL can sleep for HZ/50 then retry, rather than return failure. __GFP_CRITICAL can steal from the emergency pool rather than fail.
I would favor renaming at least the __GFP_CRITICAL to something like __GFP_EMERGPOOL, to highlight the relevant distinction.
-- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.925.600.0401 - 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/
| |