Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 1 Dec 2015 18:11:04 +0900 | From | Sergey Senozhatsky <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc() |
| |
On (12/01/15 17:16), Minchan Kim wrote: > 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? :)
OK, will do later today. Thanks.
-ss
| |