Re: [RFC] propagate gfp_t to page table alloc functions

[David Rientjes]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Minchan Kim wrote:

> > Maybe a per-thread_info variant of gfp_allowed_mask?  So Andrew's 
> > set_current_gfp() becomes set_current_gfp_allowed() that does
> > 
> > 	void set_current_gfp_allowed(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > 	{
> > 		current->gfp_allowed = gfp_mask & gfp_allowed_mask;
> > 	}
> > 
> > and then the page allocator does
> > 
> > 	gfp_mask &= current->gfp_allowed;
> > 
> > rather than how it currently does
> > 
> > 	gfp_mask &= gfp_allowed_mask;
> > 
> > and then the caller of set_current_gfp_allowed() cleans up with 
> > set_current_gfp_allowed(__GFP_BITS_MASK).
> 

[trimmed the newsgroups from the reply, not sure what the point is?]

> Caller should restore old gfp_mask instead of __GFP_BITS_MASK in case of
> nesting.And how do we care of atomic context?
> 

Eek, I'm hoping these aren't going to be nested but sure that seems 
appropraite if they are.  (I'm also hoping these will only be either 
__GFP_HIGH or __GFP_BITS_MASK and no other combinations.)

Forcing atomic context would just be set_current_gfp_allowed(__GFP_HIGH).
--
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/