From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BD4D56B004D for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:57:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:59:13 +0200 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] slab,slub: ignore __GFP_WAIT if we're booting or suspending Message-ID: <20090619145913.GA1389@ucw.cz> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Pekka J Enberg Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, npiggin@suse.de, benh@kernel.crashing.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, cl@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org List-ID: Hi! > > As explained by Benjamin Herrenschmidt: > > Oh and btw, your patch alone doesn't fix powerpc, because it's missing > a whole bunch of GFP_KERNEL's in the arch code... You would have to > grep the entire kernel for things that check slab_is_available() and > even then you'll be missing some. > > For example, slab_is_available() didn't always exist, and so in the > early days on powerpc, we used a mem_init_done global that is set form > mem_init() (not perfect but works in practice). And we still have code > using that to do the test. > > Therefore, ignore __GFP_WAIT in the slab allocators if we're booting or > suspending. Ok... GFP_KERNEL allocations normally don't fail; now they will. Should we at least force access to atomic reserves in such case? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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