Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:40:29 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Cc: Kyeongdon Kim <kyeongdon.kim@lge.com>, ngupta@vflare.org,
        sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()
Message-Id: <20151123154029.ec1cb910a827ddf51aa986c4@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20151123232857.GB3882@blaptop>
References: <1448259675-29888-1-git-send-email-kyeongdon.kim@lge.com>
	<20151123145226.63df6232c1f74898a980fdf2@linux-foundation.org>
	<20151123232857.GB3882@blaptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 776
Lines: 19

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 08:28:57 +0900 Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> wrote:

> > What's the reasoning behind the modification to the gfp flags?
> > 
> > It clears __GFP_FS, __GFP_IO and even __GFP_WAIT.  I suspect the latter
> > two (at least) can be retained.  And given that vmalloc() uses
> 
> This function is used in swapout and fs write path so we couldn't use
> those flags.

We can use __GFP_RECLAIM (used to be __GFP_WAIT).  That permits the
allocation to wait for in-flight IO to complete and to reclaim clean
pagecache.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/