From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/5] mm: add nofail variants of kmalloc kcalloc and
 kzalloc
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 23:21:31 +0200
Message-ID: <1282771291.1975.125.camel@laptop>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1008240340010.18908@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
	 <1282656558.2605.2742.camel@laptop> <4C73CA24.3060707@fusionio.com>
	 <alpine.DEB.2.00.1008241309170.21242@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
	 <20100825112433.GB4453@thunk.org> <1282736132.2605.3563.camel@laptop>
	 <20100825115709.GD4453@thunk.org> <1282740516.2605.3644.camel@laptop>
	 <20100825132417.GQ31488@dastard> <1282743342.2605.3707.camel@laptop>
	 <alpine.DEB.2.00.1008251347550.16484@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
	 <alpine.DEB.2.00.1008251604120.24931@router.home>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Jens Axboe <jaxboe@fusionio.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>, Alasdair G Kergon <agk@redhat.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
	Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>,
	Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
	"linux-raid@vger.kernel.org" <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
	"cluster-devel@redhat.com" <cluster-devel@redhat.com>,
	"linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
	"reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org" <reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Return-path: <linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1008251604120.24931@router.home>
Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 16:11 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> We already have __GFP_NOFAIL behavior for slab allocations since
> a __GFP_NOFAIL flag is passed through to the page allocator if no objects
> are available.
> 
> The page allocator will do the same as when called directly with
> __GFP_NOFAIL and so we have consistent behavior regardless of the
> allocator used.

Thank's for quoting the context to which you're replying, that really
helps parsing things..