Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755450AbbLAIQE (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 1 Dec 2015 03:16:04 -0500
Received: from LGEAMRELO11.lge.com ([156.147.23.51]:41360 "EHLO
	lgeamrelo11.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751088AbbLAIQD (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 1 Dec 2015 03:16:03 -0500
X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.121
X-Original-MAILFROM: minchan@kernel.org
X-Original-SENDERIP: 165.244.98.76
X-Original-MAILFROM: minchan@kernel.org
X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.223.161
X-Original-MAILFROM: minchan@kernel.org
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 17:16:21 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
CC: Kyeongdon Kim <kyeongdon.kim@lge.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()
Message-ID: <20151201081620.GA27574@bbox>
References: <1448597449-17579-1-git-send-email-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <20151201051652.GA894@swordfish>
 <565D3FCD.3060503@lge.com>
 <20151201071542.GB894@swordfish>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20151201071542.GB894@swordfish>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on LGEKRMHUB01/LGE/LG Group(Release 8.5.3FP6|November
 21, 2013) at 2015/12/01 17:16:00,
	Serialize by Router on LGEKRMHUB01/LGE/LG Group(Release 8.5.3FP6|November
 21, 2013) at 2015/12/01 17:16:00,
	Serialize complete at 2015/12/01 17:16:00
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1323
Lines: 40

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 04:15:42PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (12/01/15 15:35), Kyeongdon Kim wrote:
> [..]
> > @test #4
> >  kmalloc(f)
> > __vmalloc(f)
> > // cannot find failure both until now
> > 
> > log message (test #4) :
> > <4>[  641.440468][7] KDKIM: zcomp_lz4_create: 24: ret = ffffffc002190000
> > <snip>
> > <4>[  922.182980][7] KDKIM: zcomp_lz4_create: 24: ret = ffffffc002208000
> > <snip>
> > <4>[  923.197593][7] KDKIM: zcomp_lz4_create: 24: ret = ffffffc002020000
> > <snip>
> > <4>[  939.813499][7] KDKIM: zcomp_lz4_create: 24: ret = ffffffc0020a0000
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> > So,is there another problem if we remove the flag from both sides?
> > 
> 
> Technically, '~__GFP_NOMEMALLOC' is what we've been doing for some time (well,
> always); and, as Minchan noted, zsmalloc does not depend on emergency pools.
> 
> I vote for removal of __GFP_NOMEMALLOC from both kmalloc() and __vmalloc().
> 
> (user can make ->max_strm big enough to deplete emergency mem; but I tend to
> ignore it).
> 
> Minchan?

Agree. Do you mind resending patches? :)

Thanks.
--
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/