Re: [patch 0/9] Critical Mempools

[Paul Jackson]

Pekka wrote:
> As as side note, we already have __GFP_NOFAIL. How is it different
> from GFP_CRITICAL and why aren't we improving that?

Don't these two flags invoke two different mechanisms.
  __GFP_NOFAIL can sleep for HZ/50 then retry, rather than return failure.
  __GFP_CRITICAL can steal from the emergency pool rather than fail.

I would favor renaming at least the __GFP_CRITICAL to something
like __GFP_EMERGPOOL, to highlight the relevant distinction.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> 1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/