On Wed 08-03-17 07:06:59, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:48:42PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko
> >
> > KM_MAYFAIL didn't have any suitable GFP_FOO counterpart until recently
> > so it relied on the default page allocator behavior for
On Wed 08-03-17 07:06:59, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:48:42PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko
> >
> > KM_MAYFAIL didn't have any suitable GFP_FOO counterpart until recently
> > so it relied on the default page allocator behavior for the given set
> >
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:48:42PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> KM_MAYFAIL didn't have any suitable GFP_FOO counterpart until recently
> so it relied on the default page allocator behavior for the given set
> of flags. This means that small allocations
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:48:42PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> KM_MAYFAIL didn't have any suitable GFP_FOO counterpart until recently
> so it relied on the default page allocator behavior for the given set
> of flags. This means that small allocations actually never
On Wed 08-03-17 20:23:37, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2017/03/08 0:48, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko
> >
> > KM_MAYFAIL didn't have any suitable GFP_FOO counterpart until recently
> > so it relied on the default page allocator behavior for the given set
> > of flags.
On Wed 08-03-17 20:23:37, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2017/03/08 0:48, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko
> >
> > KM_MAYFAIL didn't have any suitable GFP_FOO counterpart until recently
> > so it relied on the default page allocator behavior for the given set
> > of flags. This means that
On 2017/03/08 0:48, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> KM_MAYFAIL didn't have any suitable GFP_FOO counterpart until recently
> so it relied on the default page allocator behavior for the given set
> of flags. This means that small allocations actually never failed.
>
On 2017/03/08 0:48, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> KM_MAYFAIL didn't have any suitable GFP_FOO counterpart until recently
> so it relied on the default page allocator behavior for the given set
> of flags. This means that small allocations actually never failed.
>
> Now that we
On Tue 07-03-17 09:05:19, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:48:42PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko
> >
> > KM_MAYFAIL didn't have any suitable GFP_FOO counterpart until recently
> > so it relied on the default page allocator behavior for the
On Tue 07-03-17 09:05:19, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:48:42PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko
> >
> > KM_MAYFAIL didn't have any suitable GFP_FOO counterpart until recently
> > so it relied on the default page allocator behavior for the given set
> > of
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:48:42PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> KM_MAYFAIL didn't have any suitable GFP_FOO counterpart until recently
> so it relied on the default page allocator behavior for the given set
> of flags. This means that small allocations
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:48:42PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> KM_MAYFAIL didn't have any suitable GFP_FOO counterpart until recently
> so it relied on the default page allocator behavior for the given set
> of flags. This means that small allocations actually never
From: Michal Hocko
KM_MAYFAIL didn't have any suitable GFP_FOO counterpart until recently
so it relied on the default page allocator behavior for the given set
of flags. This means that small allocations actually never failed.
Now that we have __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL flag which
From: Michal Hocko
KM_MAYFAIL didn't have any suitable GFP_FOO counterpart until recently
so it relied on the default page allocator behavior for the given set
of flags. This means that small allocations actually never failed.
Now that we have __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL flag which works independently
14 matches
Mail list logo