Re: introducing __GFP_PANIC

Cyrill Gorcunov
2009-05-04T10:52:21Z

[Pekka Enberg - Mon, May 04, 2009 at 01:33:08PM +0300]
| On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 14:11 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
| > I believe this version should be correct (still RFC).
| > __GFP_NOWARN has printk limit so instead of making
| > additional checks (while combining those prink in
| > original code) just adding panic with order and flags
| > should be cleaner (as it done at moment :)
|
| Looks good to me!
|
| Reviewed-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
|
| I suspect the patch needs some additional work for -mm due to Mel
| Gorman's page allocator cleanup and optimization patches.
|
| Pekka
|

Thanks a lot, Pekka! I'll resend this one with Mel CC'ed so he
could take a look (and a couple of people I know involved in
memory management as well).

-- Cyrill