On 2019/9/18 16:14, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 18-09-19 16:02:52, Xiubo Li wrote:
On 2019/9/18 15:25, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 18-09-19 04:58:20, xiu...@redhat.com wrote:
From: Xiubo Li
The GFP_NOIO means all further allocations will implicitly drop
both __GFP_IO and __GFP_FS flags and so
On Wed 18-09-19 16:02:52, Xiubo Li wrote:
> On 2019/9/18 15:25, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 18-09-19 04:58:20, xiu...@redhat.com wrote:
> > > From: Xiubo Li
> > >
> > > The GFP_NOIO means all further allocations will implicitly drop
> > > both __GFP_IO and __GFP_FS flags and so they are safe f
On 2019/9/18 15:25, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 18-09-19 04:58:20, xiu...@redhat.com wrote:
From: Xiubo Li
The GFP_NOIO means all further allocations will implicitly drop
both __GFP_IO and __GFP_FS flags and so they are safe for both the
IO critical section and the the critical section from the
On Wed 18-09-19 04:58:20, xiu...@redhat.com wrote:
> From: Xiubo Li
>
> The GFP_NOIO means all further allocations will implicitly drop
> both __GFP_IO and __GFP_FS flags and so they are safe for both the
> IO critical section and the the critical section from the allocation
> recursion point of
From: Xiubo Li
The GFP_NOIO means all further allocations will implicitly drop
both __GFP_IO and __GFP_FS flags and so they are safe for both the
IO critical section and the the critical section from the allocation
recursion point of view. Not only the __GFP_IO, which a bit confusing
when reading
5 matches
Mail list logo
