Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262171AbTGAKpq (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jul 2003 06:45:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262123AbTGAKpq (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jul 2003 06:45:46 -0400 Received: from bay-bridge.veritas.com ([143.127.3.10]:39519 "EHLO mtvmime01.veritas.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262030AbTGAKpi (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jul 2003 06:45:38 -0400 Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:01:21 +0100 (BST) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@localhost.localdomain To: Andrew Morton cc: Andrea Arcangeli , , , Subject: Re: What to expect with the 2.6 VM In-Reply-To: <20030630200237.473d5f82.akpm@digeo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 906 Lines: 22 On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Andrew Morton wrote: > Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > > described this way it sounds like NOFAIL imply a deadlock condition. > > NOFAIL is what 2.4 has always done, and has the deadlock opportunities > which you mention. The other modes allow the caller to say "don't try > forever". __GFP_NOFAIL is also very badly named: patently it can and does fail, when PF_MEMALLOC or PF_MEMDIE or not __GFP_WAIT. Or is the idea that its users might as well oops when it does fail? Should its users be changed to use the less perniciously named __GFP_REPEAT, or should __alloc_pages be changed to deadlock more thoroughly? Hugh - 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/