From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 02:10:50 -0800 From: Paul Jackson Subject: Re: [patch 0/9] Critical Mempools Message-Id: <20060127021050.f50d358d.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <84144f020601262335g49c21b62qaa729732e9275c0@mail.gmail.com> References: <1138217992.2092.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43D954D8.2050305@us.ibm.com> <43D95BFE.4010705@us.ibm.com> <20060127000304.GG10409@kvack.org> <43D968E4.5020300@us.ibm.com> <84144f020601262335g49c21b62qaa729732e9275c0@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Pekka Enberg Cc: colpatch@us.ibm.com, bcrl@kvack.org, clameter@engr.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sri@us.ibm.com, andrea@suse.de, pavel@suse.cz, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Pekka wrote: > As as side note, we already have __GFP_NOFAIL. How is it different > from GFP_CRITICAL and why aren't we improving that? Don't these two flags invoke two different mechanisms. __GFP_NOFAIL can sleep for HZ/50 then retry, rather than return failure. __GFP_CRITICAL can steal from the emergency pool rather than fail. I would favor renaming at least the __GFP_CRITICAL to something like __GFP_EMERGPOOL, to highlight the relevant distinction. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.925.600.0401 -- 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