Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1505058 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH] nfsd: more robust allocation failure handling in nfsd_reply_cache_init

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH] nfsd: more robust allocation failure handling in  nfsd_reply_cache_init Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> - 2016-10-20 18:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] nfsd: more robust allocation failure handling in nfsd_reply_cache_init Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-10-20 18:10 +0200

#1505058 — Re: [PATCH] nfsd: more robust allocation failure handling in nfsd_reply_cache_init

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 11:23:36AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:48 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > While this would be good to get in, I don't see any particular urgency
> > here. This seems like it'd be reasonable for v4.9.
> 
> Agreed, looks ok to me. It certainly does not look like a new
> regression or like a serious problem issue in practice. So 4.9 sounds
> appropriate.

Gah, Jeff points out I forgot to merge this.

Jeff was also wondering whether we could instead just allocate this with
vmalloc--is there any drawback?  We only allocate this on nfsd startup,
so if the only drawback is the allocation itself being expensive then
that's no big deal.

--b.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1505069 — Re: [PATCH] nfsd: more robust allocation failure handling in nfsd_reply_cache_init

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
>
> Jeff was also wondering whether we could instead just allocate this with
> vmalloc--is there any drawback?  We only allocate this on nfsd startup,
> so if the only drawback is the allocation itself being expensive then
> that's no big deal.

vmalloc is ok. Generally if it's *usually* a small allocation, the
best pattern tends to be to first try to kmalloc (of get_free_pages())
using __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN, and then fall back on vmalloc().
That way you don't end up doing vmalloc's for things that really don't
need it.

If you do that, we have a "kvfree()" helper that is "free either
kmalloc or vmalloc area", so you don't have to track after-the-fact
which one you did.

               Linus

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web