From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail144.messagelabs.com (mail144.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12F006B00A7 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:29:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Propagating GFP_NOFS inside __vmalloc() From: "Ricardo M. Correia" In-Reply-To: <20101111152732.6c6544b3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <1289421759.11149.59.camel@oralap> <20101111120643.22dcda5b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1289512924.428.112.camel@oralap> <20101111142511.c98c3808.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1289515558.428.125.camel@oralap> <1289517594.428.153.camel@oralap> <20101111152732.6c6544b3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 00:29:10 +0100 Message-ID: <1289518150.428.165.camel@oralap> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Brian Behlendorf , Andreas Dilger List-ID: On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 15:27 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 00:19:54 +0100 > "Ricardo M. Correia" wrote: > > > On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 23:45 +0100, Ricardo M. Correia wrote: > > > On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 14:25 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > And then we can set current->gfp_mask to GFP_ATOMIC when we take an > > > > interrupt, or take a spinlock. > > > > Also, doesn't this mean that spin_lock() would now have to save > > current->gfp_flags in the stack? > > > > So that we can restore the allocation mode when we do spin_unlock()? > > If we wanted to go that far, yes. Who's up for editing every spin_lock() > callsite in the kernel? Hmm... Coccinelle? ;) [1] [1] http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/ -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org