On Wed 09-09-15 18:13:39, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 08/19/2015 08:17 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> >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
On 08/19/2015 08:17 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
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
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-mmm=143876830616538w=2).
It is clear that move to the GFP_NOFS behavior change is a long
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
