Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] Reclamation interactions with RCU

Dan Carpenter
2024-03-21T06:27:24Z

On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 09:45:48AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> I have in mind a more explicit statement of how much waiting is
> acceptable.
>
> GFP_NOFAIL - wait indefinitely

Why not call it GFP_SMALL? It wouldn't fail. The size would have to be
less than some limit. If the size was too large, that would trigger a
WARN_ON_ONCE().

I obviously understand that this duplicates the information in the size
parameter but the point is that GFP_SMALL allocations have been
reviewed, updated, and don't have error handling code.

We'd keep GFP_KERNEL which would keep the existing behavior. (Which is
that it can sleep and it can fail). I think that maps to GFP_RETRY but
GFP_RETRY is an uglier name.

People could still use __GFP_NOFAIL for larger allocations.

regards,
dan carpenter