From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FFA16B006A for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:27:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] slab,slub: ignore __GFP_WAIT if we're booting or suspending From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt In-Reply-To: <20090619145913.GA1389@ucw.cz> References: <20090619145913.GA1389@ucw.cz> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:27:29 +1000 Message-Id: <1245450449.16880.10.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Pavel Machek Cc: Pekka J Enberg , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, npiggin@suse.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, cl@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org List-ID: On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 16:59 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Ok... GFP_KERNEL allocations normally don't fail; now they > will. Should we at least force access to atomic reserves in such case? No. First, code that assumes GFP_KERNEL don't fail is stupid. Any allocation should always be assumed to potentially fail. Then, if you start failing allocations at boot time, then you aren't going anywhere are you ? Cheers, Ben. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org