From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:01:31 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [Patch: 003/006] pgdat allocation for new node add (generic alloc node_data) Message-Id: <20060420160131.7344fe8f.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20060420190547.EE4E.Y-GOTO@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20060420185123.EE48.Y-GOTO@jp.fujitsu.com> <20060420190547.EE4E.Y-GOTO@jp.fujitsu.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: Yasunori Goto Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Yasunori Goto wrote: > > +#define generic_alloc_nodedata(nid) \ > +({ \ > + (pg_data_t *)kzalloc(sizeof(pg_data_t), GFP_KERNEL); \ > +}) In general, library functions which perform memory allocation should not make assumptions about which gfp_t they are allowed to use. So this really should be `generic_alloc_nodedata(nid, gfp_mask)'. However, it's very desirable that memory allocations use GFP_KERNEL rather than, say, GFP_ATOMIC. So your interface here _forces_ callers to be in a state where GFP_KERNEL is legal, which is good discipline. Although if that turns out to be a problem, we can expect to see a sad little patch from someone which tries to change this to GFP_ATOMIC, which makes everything worse - even those callers who _can_ use GFP_KERNEL. (In practice, NUMA developers seem to never test with sufficient CONFIG_DEBUG_* flags enabled, and with CONFIG_PREEMPT, so they happily don't get to discover their sleep-in-spinlock bugs anyway). Anyway, on balance, I think it'd be best to convert this API to take a gfp_t as well. -- 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