On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:14:37PM +0400, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> On 09/17/2013 11:21 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> >As vhost scsi device struct is large, if the device is
> >created on a busy system, kzalloc() might fail, so this patch does a
> >fallback to vzalloc().
>
> >As vm
Hello.
On 09/17/2013 11:21 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
As vhost scsi device struct is large, if the device is
created on a busy system, kzalloc() might fail, so this patch does a
fallback to vzalloc().
As vmalloc() adds overhead on data-path, add __GFP_REPEAT
to kzalloc() flags to do this
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:21:07AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> As vhost scsi device struct is large, if the device is
> created on a busy system, kzalloc() might fail, so this patch does a
> fallback to vzalloc().
>
> As vmalloc() adds overhead on data-path, add __GFP_REPEAT
> to kzalloc()
As vhost scsi device struct is large, if the device is
created on a busy system, kzalloc() might fail, so this patch does a
fallback to vzalloc().
As vmalloc() adds overhead on data-path, add __GFP_REPEAT
to kzalloc() flags to do this fallback only when really needed.
Reported-by: Dan Aloni
Sign
4 matches
Mail list logo