Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764463AbYCGNKj (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Mar 2008 08:10:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758349AbYCGNJu (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Mar 2008 08:09:50 -0500 Received: from mga06.intel.com ([134.134.136.21]:40911 "EHLO orsmga101.jf.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756529AbYCGNJt (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Mar 2008 08:09:49 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,462,1199692800"; d="scan'208";a="351336277" Message-ID: <47D13DEF.6030006@linux.intel.com> Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 07:06:55 -0600 From: Arjan van de Ven User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "H. Peter Anvin" CC: Pavel Machek , Ingo Molnar , Suresh Siddha , Christoph Hellwig , tglx@linutronix.de, andi@firstfloor.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] x86, fpu: lazy allocation of FPU area - v3 References: <20080303230335.892214000@linux-os.sc.intel.com> <20080303230336.042604000@linux-os.sc.intel.com> <20080304012012.GB22431@infradead.org> <20080304014306.GC28006@linux-os.sc.intel.com> <20080304103220.GA17621@elte.hu> <20080304175528.GD28006@linux-os.sc.intel.com> <20080305194705.GA4386@ucw.cz> <20080306155141.GA23340@elte.hu> <20080306202446.GA4225@ucw.cz> <47D1352F.6010504@zytor.com> In-Reply-To: <47D1352F.6010504@zytor.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1325 Lines: 36 H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Pavel Machek wrote: >> On Thu 2008-03-06 16:51:41, Ingo Molnar wrote: >>> * Pavel Machek wrote: >>> >>>>>> kmem_cache_alloc() can fail (return NULL) and not handling it is a >>>>>> bug. >>>>> oops. you are correct. Will send a sigsegv in the failure case >>>>> then. Thanks. >>>> You are introducing possibility of hard to debug error, where >>>> previous code just worked... Does not look like good idea to me. >>> hm, how does it differ from any other allocation failure? We could fail >> >> Well, we should not be sending SIGSEGV...? SIGBUS would be cleaner, or >> SIGKILL... what happens when userland tries to catch this one? >> > > I'm confused... > > Normally when we need memory for userspace and can't get it, we put the > process to sleep until memory is available. that's what GFP_KERNEL does > > Why is this different in any way? this is just for handling the case where that fails (basically near/totally OOM or the case where you get a fatal signal) maybe we need a GFP_KILLABLE now that we have a TASK_KILLABLE... -- 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/