Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:06:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:06:00 -0400 Received: from garrincha.netbank.com.br ([200.203.199.88]:29202 "HELO netbank.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:05:09 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 18:05:30 -0200 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: To: Marcelo Tosatti Cc: Linus Torvalds , "David S. Miller" , Subject: Re: [PATCH] fork() failing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org 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 On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > Imagine people changing the point where the > > if ((gfp_mask & __GFP_FAIL)) > return; > > check is done (inside the freeing routines). > > I would like to have a _defined_ meaning for a "fail easily" allocation, > and a simple unique __GFP_FAIL flag can't give us that IMO. Actually, I guess we could define this to be the same point where we'd end up freeing memory in order to satisfy our allocation. This would result in __GFP_FAIL meaning "give me memory if it's available, but don't waste time freeing memory if we don't have enough free memory now". Space-wise these semantics could change (say, pages_low vs. pages_min), but they'll stay the same when you look at "how hard to try" or "how much effort to spend". regards, Rik -- DMCA, SSSCA, W3C? Who cares? http://thefreeworld.net/ (volunteers needed) http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ - 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/