> Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > NAK, I really utterly dislike that inatomic argument. The alloc side > > doesn't function in atomic context either. Please keep the thing > > symmetric in that regards. > > Excuse me. kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL) may sleep (and therefore cannot be used in > atomic context). However, kfree() for memory allocated with > kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL) > never sleep (and therefore can be used in atomic context). > Why kmalloc() and kfree() are NOT kept symmetric?
In kmalloc case, we need to consider both kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL)/kfree() pair and kmalloc(GFP_ATOMIC)/kfree() pair. latter is mainly used on atomic context. To make kfree() atomic help to keep the implementation simple. But kvmalloc don't have GFP_ATOMIC feautre. that's big difference. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list contain...@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
