On Thu 02-09-10 09:59:13, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 09/02/2010 03:02 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
> > --- a/include/linux/slab.h +++ b/include/linux/slab.h @@ -334,6 +334,57
> > @@ static inline void *kzalloc_node(size_t size, gfp_t flags, int node)
> > return kmalloc_node(size, flags | __GFP_ZERO, node); }
> >
> > +/** + * kmalloc_nofail - infinitely loop until kmalloc() succeeds. +
> > * @size: how many bytes of memory are required. + * @flags: the type
> > of memory to allocate (see kmalloc). + * + * NOTE: no new callers of
> > this function should be implemented! + * All memory allocations should
> > be failable whenever possible. + */ +static inline void
> > *kmalloc_nofail(size_t size, gfp_t flags) +{ + void *ret; + + for
> > (;;) { + ret = kmalloc(size, flags); + if (ret) +
> > return ret; + WARN_ON_ONCE(get_order(size) >
> > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER);
>
> This doesn't work as you expect. kmalloc will warn every time it fails.
> __GFP_NOFAIL used to disable the warning. Actually what's wrong with
> __GFP_NOFAIL? I cannot find a reason in the changelogs why the patches
> are needed.
David should probably add the reasoning to the changelogs so that he
doesn't have to explain again and again ;). But if I understood it
correctly, the concern is that the looping checks slightly impact fast path
of the callers which do not need it. Generally, also looping for a long
time inside allocator isn't a nice thing but some callers aren't able to do
better for now to the patch is imperfect in this sence...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <j...@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
