Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756431AbZFXR6W (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:58:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754418AbZFXR6P (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:58:15 -0400 Received: from courier.cs.helsinki.fi ([128.214.9.1]:50582 "EHLO mail.cs.helsinki.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752551AbZFXR6O (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:58:14 -0400 Message-ID: <4A426825.80905@cs.helsinki.fi> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:53:41 +0300 From: Pekka Enberg User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: Arjan van de Ven , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, Christoph Lameter , Nick Piggin Subject: Re: upcoming kerneloops.org item: get_page_from_freelist References: <20090624080753.4f677847@infradead.org> <20090624094622.d0b0fd82.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <84144f020906240955h5e26a248scc61439c1ca36023@mail.gmail.com> <20090624105517.904f93da.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20090624105517.904f93da.akpm@linux-foundation.org> 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: 1211 Lines: 29 Hi Andrew, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:55:24 +0300 Pekka Enberg wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: >>> Well yes. __Using GFP_NOFAIL on a higher-order allocation is bad. __This >>> patch is there to find, name, shame, blame and hopefully fix callers. >>> >>> A fix for cxgb3 is in the works. __slub's design is a big problem. >>> >>> But we'll probably have to revert it for 2.6.31 :( >> How is SLUB's design a problem here? Can't we just clear GFP_NOFAIL >> from the higher order allocation and thus force GFP_NOFAIL allocations >> to use the minimum required order? > > That could then lead to the __GFP_NOFAIL allocation attempt returning > NULL. But the callers cannot handle that and probably don't even test > for it - this is why they used __GFP_NOFAIL. No, the fallback allocation would still use __GFP_NOFAIL so the semantics are preserved. Pekka -- 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/