Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] xfs: map KM_MAYFAIL to __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL

2017-03-09 Thread Michal Hocko
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

Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] xfs: map KM_MAYFAIL to __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL

2017-03-09 Thread Michal Hocko
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 > >

Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] xfs: map KM_MAYFAIL to __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL

2017-03-08 Thread Christoph Hellwig
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

Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] xfs: map KM_MAYFAIL to __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL

2017-03-08 Thread Christoph Hellwig
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

Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] xfs: map KM_MAYFAIL to __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL

2017-03-08 Thread Michal Hocko
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.

Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] xfs: map KM_MAYFAIL to __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL

2017-03-08 Thread Michal Hocko
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

Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] xfs: map KM_MAYFAIL to __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL

2017-03-08 Thread Tetsuo Handa
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. >

Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] xfs: map KM_MAYFAIL to __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL

2017-03-08 Thread Tetsuo Handa
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

Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] xfs: map KM_MAYFAIL to __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL

2017-03-08 Thread Michal Hocko
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

Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] xfs: map KM_MAYFAIL to __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL

2017-03-08 Thread Michal Hocko
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

Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] xfs: map KM_MAYFAIL to __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL

2017-03-07 Thread Darrick J. Wong
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

Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] xfs: map KM_MAYFAIL to __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL

2017-03-07 Thread Darrick J. Wong
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