Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:56:34 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Cc:     Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/3] mm/vmalloc: add support for __GFP_NOFAIL
Message-ID: <YXErQnjG7VPH28Ab@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20211019110649.GA1933@pc638.lan>
 <YW6xZ7vi/7NVzRH5@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20211019194658.GA1787@pc638.lan>
 <YW/SYl/ZKp7W60mg@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CA+KHdyUopXQVTp2=X-7DYYFNiuTrh25opiUOd1CXED1UXY2Fhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <YXAiZdvk8CGvZCIM@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CA+KHdyUyObf2m51uFpVd_tVCmQyn_mjMO0hYP+L0AmRs0PWKow@mail.gmail.com>
 <YXAtYGLv/k+j6etV@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CA+KHdyVdrfLPNJESEYzxfF+bksFpKGCd8vH=NqdwfPOLV9ZO8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20211020192430.GA1861@pc638.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20211020192430.GA1861@pc638.lan>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed 20-10-21 21:24:30, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 05:00:28PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed 20-10-21 16:29:14, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 4:06 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > As I've said I am OK with either of the two. Do you or anybody have any
> > > > > preference? Without any explicit event to wake up for neither of the two
> > > > > is more than just an optimistic retry.
> > > > >
> > > > From power perspective it is better to have a delay, so i tend to say
> > > > that delay is better.
> > >
> > > I am a terrible random number generator. Can you give me a number
> > > please?
> > >
> > Well, we can start from one jiffy so it is one timer tick: schedule_timeout(1)

OK, I will go with 1 jiffy.

> A small nit, it is better to replace it by the simple msleep() call: msleep(jiffies_to_msecs(1));

I have planned to use schedule_timeout_uninterruptible. Why do you think
msleep is better?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs