From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19F25C433FE for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 08:56:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00F88610C8 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 08:56:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231509AbhJUI6y (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2021 04:58:54 -0400 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de ([195.135.220.29]:52440 "EHLO smtp-out2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231461AbhJUI6w (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2021 04:58:52 -0400 Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 413D71FD53; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 08:56:36 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1634806596; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=kpeGLRKbnlmOm6fEFAowHlW4B0c6o3WCsqPV+QnxPs8=; b=lKNuU5yFt7bUcL3PD73O+nTClJA/6RYuQFrJ0DibDtDeDytMFilbotlF9CeMsJ13BP2OCS WWsFb9iX0L3+qqhMYjh47s+6CYsDHeh9vD7kDtkYjXG30MVOJ8uNu88fyyHtrk09BIX/HJ E9kzJTlYqTi9SSrVNAo57T4h25Hh9XA= Received: from suse.cz (unknown [10.100.201.86]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E64BA3B89; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 08:56:36 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:56:34 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Uladzislau Rezki Cc: Linux Memory Management List , Dave Chinner , Neil Brown , Andrew Morton , Christoph Hellwig , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Ilya Dryomov , Jeff Layton Subject: Re: [RFC 2/3] mm/vmalloc: add support for __GFP_NOFAIL Message-ID: References: <20211019110649.GA1933@pc638.lan> <20211019194658.GA1787@pc638.lan> <20211020192430.GA1861@pc638.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20211020192430.GA1861@pc638.lan> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed 20-10-21 21:24:30, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 05:00:28PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > > > > On Wed 20-10-21 16:29:14, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 4:06 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > As I've said I am OK with either of the two. Do you or anybody have any > > > > > preference? Without any explicit event to wake up for neither of the two > > > > > is more than just an optimistic retry. > > > > > > > > > From power perspective it is better to have a delay, so i tend to say > > > > that delay is better. > > > > > > I am a terrible random number generator. Can you give me a number > > > please? > > > > > Well, we can start from one jiffy so it is one timer tick: schedule_timeout(1) OK, I will go with 1 jiffy. > A small nit, it is better to replace it by the simple msleep() call: msleep(jiffies_to_msecs(1)); I have planned to use schedule_timeout_uninterruptible. Why do you think msleep is better? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs