Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 25 Aug 2017 23:39:36 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH] treewide: remove GFP_TEMPORARY allocation flag |
| |
On Fri 2017-08-25 10:04:42, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 25-08-17 09:28:19, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Fri 2017-08-25 08:35:46, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Wed 23-08-17 19:57:09, Pavel Machek wrote: > [...] > > > > Dunno. < 1msec probably is temporary, 1 hour probably is not. If it causes > > > > problems, can you just #define GFP_TEMPORARY GFP_KERNEL ? Treewide replace, > > > > and then starting again goes not look attractive to me. > > > > > > I do not think we want a highlevel GFP_TEMPORARY without any meaning. > > > This just supports spreading the flag usage without a clear semantic > > > and it will lead to even bigger mess. Once we can actually define what > > > the flag means we can also add its users based on that new semantic. > > > > It has real meaning. > > Which is?
"This allocation is temporary. It lasts milliseconds, not hours."
> > You can define more exact meaning, and then adjust the usage. But > > there's no need to do treewide replacement... > > I have checked most of them and except for the initially added onces the > large portion where added without a good reasons or even break an > intuitive meaning by taking locks.
I don't see it. kmalloc() itself takes locks. Of course everyone takes locks. I don't think that's intuitive meaning.
> Seriously, if we need a short term semantic it should be clearly defined > first.
"milliseconds, not hours."
> Is there any specific case why you think this patch is in a wrong > direction? E.g. a measurable regression?
Not playing that game. You should argue why it is improvement. And I don't believe you did.
Best regards,
Pavel
-- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] |  |