From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [RFC] mm: generic adaptive large memory allocation APIs Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 19:43:49 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <20100513191838.217F.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20100513182403.217C.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <4BEBD180.3040404@suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Changli Gao , akpm@linux-foundation.org, Eric Dumazet , Alexander Viro , "Paul E. McKenney" , Alexey Dobriyan , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Avi Kivity , Tetsuo Handa To: Jiri Slaby Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4BEBD180.3040404@suse.cz> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org > On 05/13/2010 11:40 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > >>>> Anyway as this is a replacement for explicit tests, it shouldn't change > >>>> the behaviour in any way. Obviously when a user doesn't need virtually > >>>> contiguous space, he shouldn't use this interface at all. > >>> > >>> Why can't we make fdtable virtually contiguous free? > >> > >> This is possible, but the question is why to make the code more complex? > > > > because it's broken. > > Well, could you explain what exactly is broken about > x = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL); > if (!x) > x = vmalloc(size); > ? Is is that kmalloc doesn't return until is has the memory to return > when asking for order(size) <= COSTLY_ORDER? I think this is expected. Well, but fdtable doesn't really need contenious memory. no? To make API mean we recommend to use it. but I don't hope to spread this wrong habit. Instead, to kill it seems better.