Re: [PATCH] slub: consider pfmemalloc_match() in get_partial_node()

On Sat, 25 Aug 2012, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > There is no consideration for pfmemalloc_match() in get_partial(). If we don't > consider that, we can't restrict access to PFMEMALLOC page mostly. > > We may encounter following scenario. > > Assume there is a request from normal allocation > and there

Re: [PATCH] slub: consider pfmemalloc_match() in get_partial_node()

On Sat, 25 Aug 2012, Joonsoo Kim wrote: There is no consideration for pfmemalloc_match() in get_partial(). If we don't consider that, we can't restrict access to PFMEMALLOC page mostly. We may encounter following scenario. Assume there is a request from normal allocation and there is no

[PATCH] slub: consider pfmemalloc_match() in get_partial_node()

There is no consideration for pfmemalloc_match() in get_partial(). If we don't consider that, we can't restrict access to PFMEMALLOC page mostly. We may encounter following scenario. Assume there is a request from normal allocation and there is no objects in per cpu cache and no node partial

[PATCH] slub: consider pfmemalloc_match() in get_partial_node()

There is no consideration for pfmemalloc_match() in get_partial(). If we don't consider that, we can't restrict access to PFMEMALLOC page mostly. We may encounter following scenario. Assume there is a request from normal allocation and there is no objects in per cpu cache and no node partial