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

[David Rientjes]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:

> > Or do we instead do this:
> > 
> > -	some_function(foo, bar, GFP_NOIO);
> > +	old_gfp = set_current_gfp(GFP_NOIO);
> > +	some_function(foo, bar);
> > +	set_current_gfp(old_gfp);
> > 
> > So the rule is "if the code was using an explicit GFP_foo then convert
> > it to use set_current_gfp().  If the code was receiving a gfp_t
> > variable from the caller then delete that arg".
> > 
> > Or something like that.  It's all too hopelessly impractical to bother
> > discussing - 20 years too late!
> > 
> > 
> > otoh, maybe a constrained version of this could be used to address the
> > vmalloc() problem alone.
> > 
> 
> Yes, I think it will be good start.
> 

Maybe a per-thread_info variant of gfp_allowed_mask?  So Andrew's 
set_current_gfp() becomes set_current_gfp_allowed() that does

	void set_current_gfp_allowed(gfp_t gfp_mask)
	{
		current->gfp_allowed = gfp_mask & gfp_allowed_mask;
	}

and then the page allocator does

	gfp_mask &= current->gfp_allowed;

rather than how it currently does

	gfp_mask &= gfp_allowed_mask;

and then the caller of set_current_gfp_allowed() cleans up with 
set_current_gfp_allowed(__GFP_BITS_MASK).
--
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/