On 01/26/2017 01:09 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 12-01-17 16:37:12, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
+void *kvmalloc_node(size_t size, gfp_t flags, int node)
+{
+ gfp_t kmalloc_flags = flags;
+ void *ret;
+
+ /*
+* vmalloc uses GFP_KERNEL for some internal allocations (e.g p
On Thu 12-01-17 16:37:12, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> +void *kvmalloc_node(size_t size, gfp_t flags, int node)
> +{
> + gfp_t kmalloc_flags = flags;
> + void *ret;
> +
> + /*
> + * vmalloc uses GFP_KERNEL for some internal allocations (e.g page
> tables)
> + * so the given se
On 01/19/2017 01:56 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 19-01-17 01:09:35, John Hubbard wrote:
[...]
So that leaves us with maybe this for documentation?
* Reclaim modifiers - __GFP_NORETRY and __GFP_NOFAIL should not be passed in.
* Passing in __GFP_REPEAT is supported, and will cause the followi
On Thu 19-01-17 01:09:35, John Hubbard wrote:
[...]
> So that leaves us with maybe this for documentation?
>
> * Reclaim modifiers - __GFP_NORETRY and __GFP_NOFAIL should not be passed in.
> * Passing in __GFP_REPEAT is supported, and will cause the following
> behavior:
> * for larger (>64KB)
On 01/19/2017 12:45 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 19-01-17 00:37:08, John Hubbard wrote:
On 01/18/2017 12:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 17-01-17 21:59:13, John Hubbard wrote:
[...]
* Reclaim modifiers - __GFP_NORETRY and __GFP_NOFAIL should not be passed in.
* Passing in __GFP_REPEAT
On Thu 19-01-17 00:37:08, John Hubbard wrote:
>
>
> On 01/18/2017 12:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 17-01-17 21:59:13, John Hubbard wrote:
[...]
> > > * Reclaim modifiers - __GFP_NORETRY and __GFP_NOFAIL should not be
> > > passed in.
> > > * Passing in __GFP_REPEAT is supported, but no
On 01/18/2017 12:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 17-01-17 21:59:13, John Hubbard wrote:
On 01/16/2017 11:51 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 16-01-17 13:57:43, John Hubbard wrote:
On 01/16/2017 01:48 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 16-01-17 13:15:08, John Hubbard wrote:
On 01/16/2017 1
On Tue 17-01-17 21:59:13, John Hubbard wrote:
>
> On 01/16/2017 11:51 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 16-01-17 13:57:43, John Hubbard wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 01/16/2017 01:48 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Mon 16-01-17 13:15:08, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 0
On 01/16/2017 11:51 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 16-01-17 13:57:43, John Hubbard wrote:
On 01/16/2017 01:48 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 16-01-17 13:15:08, John Hubbard wrote:
On 01/16/2017 11:40 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 16-01-17 11:09:37, John Hubbard wrote:
On 01/16/2017 1
On Mon 16-01-17 13:57:43, John Hubbard wrote:
>
>
> On 01/16/2017 01:48 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 16-01-17 13:15:08, John Hubbard wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 01/16/2017 11:40 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Mon 16-01-17 11:09:37, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > O
On 01/16/2017 01:48 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 16-01-17 13:15:08, John Hubbard wrote:
On 01/16/2017 11:40 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 16-01-17 11:09:37, John Hubbard wrote:
On 01/16/2017 12:47 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Sun 15-01-17 20:34:13, John Hubbard wrote:
[...]
Is that "
On Mon 16-01-17 13:15:08, John Hubbard wrote:
>
>
> On 01/16/2017 11:40 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 16-01-17 11:09:37, John Hubbard wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 01/16/2017 12:47 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Sun 15-01-17 20:34:13, John Hubbard wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > > Is that "Recl
On 01/16/2017 11:40 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 16-01-17 11:09:37, John Hubbard wrote:
On 01/16/2017 12:47 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Sun 15-01-17 20:34:13, John Hubbard wrote:
[...]
Is that "Reclaim modifiers" line still true, or is it a leftover from an
earlier approach? I am having
On Mon 16-01-17 11:09:37, John Hubbard wrote:
>
>
> On 01/16/2017 12:47 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Sun 15-01-17 20:34:13, John Hubbard wrote:
[...]
> > > Is that "Reclaim modifiers" line still true, or is it a leftover from an
> > > earlier approach? I am having trouble reconciling it with re
On 01/16/2017 12:47 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Sun 15-01-17 20:34:13, John Hubbard wrote:
On 01/12/2017 07:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
diff --git a/mm/util.c b/mm/util.c
index 3cb2164f4099..7e0c240b5760 100644
--- a/mm/util.c
+++ b/mm/util.c
@@ -324,6 +324,48 @@ unsigned long vm_mmap(
On Sun 15-01-17 20:34:13, John Hubbard wrote:
>
>
> On 01/12/2017 07:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > diff --git a/mm/util.c b/mm/util.c
> > index 3cb2164f4099..7e0c240b5760 100644
> > --- a/mm/util.c
> > +++ b/mm/util.c
> > @@ -324,6 +324,48 @@ unsigned long vm_mmap(struct file *file, unsign
On 01/12/2017 07:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
From: Michal Hocko
Using kmalloc with the vmalloc fallback for larger allocations is a
common pattern in the kernel code. Yet we do not have any common helper
for that and so users have invented their own helpers. Some of them are
really creative wh
17 matches
Mail list logo