From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932175AbWDBJPP (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Apr 2006 05:15:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932280AbWDBJPO (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Apr 2006 05:15:14 -0400 Received: from smtp105.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.215]:11104 "HELO smtp105.mail.mud.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932175AbWDBJPM (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Apr 2006 05:15:12 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=6YKZGmiCi71+QCevmV8hPk6I9EdHZE7OE6OJuZ37NSiL5gOctE1ufs7KjCufi2z6KC3G7sNhAVIovKEioLHiDelFxm9/QBMuTwxQSCYZdbUJe7YANuY6GMA/FVTwtX4TJgFERlRNTn93nnsjbYHXqXyxk1+O3sKLFdTcZVcn/JM= ; Message-ID: <442F6307.7040602@yahoo.com.au> Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 15:37:11 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20051007 Debian/1.7.12-1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: vatsa@in.ibm.com, mingo@elte.hu, suresh.b.siddha@intel.com, dino@in.ibm.com, pj@sgi.com, hawkes@sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.16-mm2 1/4] sched_domain - handle kmalloc failure References: <20060401185222.GA10591@in.ibm.com> <442F2A79.1040903@yahoo.com.au> <20060401212533.61a02f9d.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20060401212533.61a02f9d.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: > Nick Piggin wrote: >>In that case, would it be simpler just >>to add a __GFP_NOFAIL here and forget about it? > > > No new __GFP_NOFAILs, please. It isn't a new one as such. It would simply make explicit the fact that this code really can't handle allocation failures, and it is presently depending on the allocator implementation to work. > The fact that the CPU addition will succeed, but it'll run forever more > with load balancing disabled still seems Just Wrong to me. We should > either completely succeed or completely fail. > Yes. But we shouldn't partially fail and leave the machine crippled. Hence, __GFP_NOFAIL as a good marker for someone who gets keen and comes along to fix it up properly. If it were trivial to fix it, I wouldn't suggest adding the __GFP_NOFAIL. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com