Re: [PATCH] fork() failing

Rik van Riel (riel@conectiva.com.br)
Thu, 18 Oct 2001 18:05:30 -0200 (BRST)


On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:

> Imagine people changing the point where the
>
> if ((gfp_mask & __GFP_FAIL))
> return;
>
> check is done (inside the freeing routines).
>
> I would like to have a _defined_ meaning for a "fail easily" allocation,
> and a simple unique __GFP_FAIL flag can't give us that IMO.

Actually, I guess we could define this to be the same point
where we'd end up freeing memory in order to satisfy our
allocation.

This would result in __GFP_FAIL meaning "give me memory if
it's available, but don't waste time freeing memory if we
don't have enough free memory now".

Space-wise these semantics could change (say, pages_low
vs. pages_min), but they'll stay the same when you look at
"how hard to try" or "how much effort to spend".

regards,

Rik

-- 
DMCA, SSSCA, W3C?  Who cares?  http://thefreeworld.net/  (volunteers needed)

http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/