On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 02:17:39PM +0200, mho...@kernel.org wrote: > Hi, > these two patches were sent as a part of a larger RFC which aims at > allowing GFP_NOFS allocations to fail to help sort out memory reclaim > issues bound to the current behavior > (http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=143876830616538&w=2). > > It is clear that move to the GFP_NOFS behavior change is a long term > plan but these patches should be good enough even with that change in > place. It also seems that Chris wasn't opposed and would be willing to > take them http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=143991792427165&w=2 so here we > come. I have rephrased the changeslogs to not refer to the patch which > changes the NOFS behavior. > > Just to clarify. These two patches allowed my particular testcase > (mentioned in the cover referenced above) to survive it doesn't mean > that the failing GFP_NOFS are OK now. I have seen some other places > where GFP_NOFS allocation is followed by BUG_ON(ALLOC_FAILED). I have > not encountered them though. > > Let me know if you would prefer other changes.
My plan is to start with these two and take more as required. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/