Re: LIBCFS_ALLOC

2015-06-30 Thread Dan Carpenter
All that you are saying is true and stuff that Julia and I have discussed before. For this call site though we are not allocating 32k, we're allocating 4 pointers so libcfs_kvzalloc() doesn't make sense. regards, dan carpenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ke

RE: LIBCFS_ALLOC

2015-06-30 Thread Julia Lawall
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, Simmons, James A. wrote: > >Yeah. You're right. Doing a vmalloc() when kmalloc() doesn't have even > >a tiny sliver of RAM isn't going to work. It's easier to use > >libcfs_kvzalloc() everywhere, but it's probably the wrong thing. > > The original reason we have the vmal

RE: LIBCFS_ALLOC

2015-06-30 Thread Simmons, James A.
>Yeah. You're right. Doing a vmalloc() when kmalloc() doesn't have even >a tiny sliver of RAM isn't going to work. It's easier to use >libcfs_kvzalloc() everywhere, but it's probably the wrong thing. The original reason we have the vmalloc water mark wasn't so much the issue of memory exhausti

Re: LIBCFS_ALLOC

2015-06-28 Thread Dan Carpenter
Yeah. You're right. Doing a vmalloc() when kmalloc() doesn't have even a tiny sliver of RAM isn't going to work. It's easier to use libcfs_kvzalloc() everywhere, but it's probably the wrong thing. regards, dan carpenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"