Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752226AbbKXAfN (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Nov 2015 19:35:13 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f45.google.com ([209.85.220.45]:34439 "EHLO mail-pa0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751843AbbKXAfL (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Nov 2015 19:35:11 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 09:35:00 +0900 From: Minchan Kim To: Andrew Morton Cc: Kyeongdon Kim , ngupta@vflare.org, sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc() Message-ID: <20151124003500.GD3882@blaptop> References: <1448259675-29888-1-git-send-email-kyeongdon.kim@lge.com> <20151123145226.63df6232c1f74898a980fdf2@linux-foundation.org> <20151123232857.GB3882@blaptop> <20151123154029.ec1cb910a827ddf51aa986c4@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151123154029.ec1cb910a827ddf51aa986c4@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1443 Lines: 42 On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 03:40:29PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 08:28:57 +0900 Minchan Kim 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. Generally, you're right but in case of zram, it would be unfortunate. It would be void *most of time* because it is called in reclaim context and reclaim path bails out to avoid recursion of direct reclaim by PF_MEMALLOC without trying reclaim. However, the reason I said *most of time* is we has another context the funcion could be called. "disksize_store"->zcomp_create In the place, we should make sure the successful allocation to work zram at least so that path should use another gfp. I will work for that. Thanks, Andrew, > -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- 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/