From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Masashi Honma <masashi.honma@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 12:15:35 +0900
Subject: [Cluster-devel] [RFC 5/7] net: Add allocation flag to
	rtnl_unicast()
In-Reply-To: <1467946591.1273.45.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
References: <1467764916-4983-1-git-send-email-masashi.honma@gmail.com>
	<1467764916-4983-6-git-send-email-masashi.honma@gmail.com>
	<1467946591.1273.45.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
Message-ID: <577F1AD7.8040800@gmail.com>
List-Id: <cluster-devel.redhat.com>
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 2016?07?08? 11:56, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> Managing to mix GFP_ATOMIC and GFP_KERNEL almost randomly as you did in
> this patch is definitely not good.
>
> Further more, RTNL is a mutex, held in control path, designed to allow
> schedules and waiting for memory under pressure.
>
> We do not want to encourage GFP_ATOMIC usage in control path.
>
> Your patch series gives the wrong signal to developers.
>
>
>

Thanks for comment.

I have selected GFP flags based on existing code.

I have selected GFP_ATOMIC in inet6_netconf_get_devconf() because
skb was allocated with GFP_ATOMIC.

I have used GFP_KERNEL in inet6_rtm_getaddr() by same reason.

 > I will send a patch against net/ipv4/devinet.c so that we remove
 > GFP_ATOMIC usage there.

Thanks. I will modify my patch based on your new code.