Re: [RFC] propagate gfp_t to page table alloc functions

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:48:29 +1000
Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > Hmm, there are several places to use GFP_NOIO and GFP_NOFS even, GFP_ATOMIC.
> > I believe it's not trivial now.
> 
> They're all buggy then. Unfortunately not through any real fault of their own.

There are gruesome problems in block/blk-throttle.c (thread "mempool,
percpu, blkcg: fix percpu stat allocation and remove stats_lock").  It
wants to do an alloc_percpu()->vmalloc() from the IO submission path,
under GFP_NOIO.

Changing vmalloc() to take a gfp_t does make lots of sense, although I
worry a bit about making vmalloc() easier to use!

I do wonder whether the whole scheme of explicitly passing a gfp_t was
a mistake and that the allocation context should be part of the task
context.  ie: pass the allocation mode via *current.  As a handy
side-effect that would probably save quite some code where functions
are receiving a gfp_t arg then simply passing it on to the next
callee.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/