From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from userp1050.oracle.com ([156.151.31.82]:40355 "EHLO userp1050.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752233AbdCGDpZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Mar 2017 22:45:25 -0500 Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 16:13:28 -0800 From: "Darrick J. Wong" Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: remove kmem_zalloc_greedy Message-ID: <20170307001327.GC5281@birch.djwong.org> References: <20170306184109.GC5280@birch.djwong.org> <20170307000754.GA9959@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170307000754.GA9959@lst.de> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Brian Foster , Michal Hocko , Tetsuo Handa , Xiong Zhou , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Michal Hocko , Dave Chinner On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 01:07:54AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > I like killing it, but shouldn't we just try a normal kmem_zalloc? > At least for the fallback it's the right thing, and even for an > order 2 allocation it seems like a useful first try. I'm confused -- kmem_zalloc_large tries kmem_zalloc with KM_MAYFAIL and only falls back to __vmalloc if it doesn't get anything. Or maybe I've misunderstood, and you're asking if we should try kmem_zalloc(4 pages), then kmem_zalloc(1 page), and only then switch to the __vmalloc calls? --D