From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55414C433FE for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 14:53:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E27416135F for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 14:53:24 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org E27416135F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 66B2D6B0073; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 10:53:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 61A846B0074; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 10:53:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 4E20A900002; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 10:53:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0126.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.126]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 406FF6B0073 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 10:53:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin23.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2E7A27748 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 14:53:23 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78717109086.23.F4CF771 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) by imf14.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DDFF600198B for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 14:53:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E98501FD39; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 14:53:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1634741601; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=O8bh/JNAXl0EbyJbdZo/SNAN5DDfXJOs+3Sv4Zhg3O0=; b=JNuzYGOdhvILbvr1KUKHON8SPNEtIYfQGJdkWNYg1JDgt0nR62uMVJsWzaoch0RR0SYaSI +sne66bRJbe3TmoUNFJipcrvIo7neOd2/V1lwq+pX1HQMCUxHBM3oEG7zQwUiet9EvgJzo ZYFX0rKorRDJlOGgEyXwlNpV98Smzj8= Received: from suse.cz (unknown [10.100.201.86]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E579A3B83; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 14:53:21 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 16:53:20 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Uladzislau Rezki Cc: Linux Memory Management List , Dave Chinner , Neil Brown , Andrew Morton , Christoph Hellwig , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Ilya Dryomov , Jeff Layton Subject: Re: [RFC 2/3] mm/vmalloc: add support for __GFP_NOFAIL Message-ID: References: <20211018114712.9802-1-mhocko@kernel.org> <20211018114712.9802-3-mhocko@kernel.org> <20211019110649.GA1933@pc638.lan> <20211019194658.GA1787@pc638.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam06 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 7DDFF600198B X-Stat-Signature: rsjqtzybdebay44yhbus3katq8c7qmgo Authentication-Results: imf14.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b=JNuzYGOd; spf=pass (imf14.hostedemail.com: domain of mhocko@suse.com designates 195.135.220.29 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mhocko@suse.com; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=suse.com X-HE-Tag: 1634741604-593355 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed 20-10-21 16:29:14, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 4:06 PM Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > As I've said I am OK with either of the two. Do you or anybody have any > > preference? Without any explicit event to wake up for neither of the two > > is more than just an optimistic retry. > > > From power perspective it is better to have a delay, so i tend to say > that delay is better. I am a terrible random number generator. Can you give me a number please? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs