Re: [PATCH v2] slab,slub: ignore __GFP_WAIT if we're booting or suspending

[Nick Piggin]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 01:11:52PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
> 
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Ingo Molnar<mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > IMHO such invisible side-channels modifying the semantics of GFP
> > flags is a bit dubious.
> >
> > We could do GFP_INIT or GFP_BOOT. These can imply other useful
> > modifiers as well: panic-on-failure for example. (this would clean
> > up a fair amount of init code that currently checks for an panics on
> > allocation failure.)
> 
> OK, but that means we need to fix up every single caller. I'm fine
> with that but Ben is not. As I am unable to test powerpc here, I am
> inclined to just merge Ben's patch as "obviously correct".

I agree with Ingo though that exposing it as a gfp modifier is
not so good. I just like the implementation to mask off GFP_WAIT
better, and also prefer not to test system state, but have someone
just call into slab to tell it not to unconditionally enable
interrupts.

> That does not mean we can't introduce GFP_BOOT later on if we want to. Hmm?

Yes, with sufficient warnings in place, I don't think it should be
too error prone to clean up remaining code over the course of
a few releases.

--
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/