Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1275985
| From | Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc() |
| Date | 2015-11-24 01:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qy9Oh-Lz-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <qxSNr-6uY-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qy8fv-89o-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <qy8Iy-6V-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <qy91T-dn-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 03:40:29PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 08:28:57 +0900 Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > > What's the reasoning behind the modification to the gfp flags?
> > >
> > > It clears __GFP_FS, __GFP_IO and even __GFP_WAIT. I suspect the latter
> > > two (at least) can be retained. And given that vmalloc() uses
> >
> > This function is used in swapout and fs write path so we couldn't use
> > those flags.
>
> We can use __GFP_RECLAIM (used to be __GFP_WAIT). That permits the
> allocation to wait for in-flight IO to complete and to reclaim clean
> pagecache.
Generally, you're right but in case of zram, it would be unfortunate.
It would be void *most of time* because it is called in reclaim context
and reclaim path bails out to avoid recursion of direct reclaim
by PF_MEMALLOC without trying reclaim.
However, the reason I said *most of time* is we has another context
the funcion could be called.
"disksize_store"->zcomp_create
In the place, we should make sure the successful allocation to work
zram at least so that path should use another gfp.
I will work for that.
Thanks, Andrew,
>
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH v3] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc() Kyeongdon Kim <kyeongdon.kim@lge.com> - 2015-11-23 07:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH v3] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc() Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2015-11-23 07:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH v3] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc() Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 08:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH v3] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc() Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-11-24 00:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH v3] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc() Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2015-11-24 00:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH v3] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc() Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-11-24 00:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH v3] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc() Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2015-11-24 01:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH v3] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc() Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 02:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH v3] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc() Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2015-11-24 05:00 +0100
Re: Re: [PATCH v3] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc() Kyeongdon Kim <kyeongdon.kim@lge.com> - 2015-11-24 09:10 +0100
Re: Re: [PATCH v3] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc() Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2015-11-24 09:20 +0100
Re: Re: [PATCH v3] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc() Kyeongdon Kim <kyeongdon.kim@lge.com> - 2015-11-24 09:00 +0100
csiph-web