On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Yes, I'm inclined to agree. Or at least not disagree. I'm more arguing
> that the order itself may not be the most interesting thing, and that
> I don't think the balancing has to take the order of the allocation
> into account - because it should be equivalent to just tell that it's
> a soft allocation (whether though the current !__GFP_HIGH or through a
> new __GFP_SOFT with slightly different logic).
yep, and there is another problem with pure order-based distinction: if i
do kmalloc(5k), and write the code on Alpha and expect it to never fail,
shouldnt i expect this to never fail on x86 as well? Along with the fork()
failure. __GFP_SOFT solves this all very nicely - the *allocator* decides
what allocation policy to follow. Great!
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 21:00:15 EST