From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965879AbeE2SQS (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2018 14:16:18 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:48011 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965718AbeE2SQQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2018 14:16:16 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 10:59:27 -0700 From: Davidlohr Bueso To: Herbert Xu Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, tgraf@suug.ch, manfred@colorfullife.com, guillaume.knispel@supersonicimagine.com, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] lib/rhashtable: guarantee initial hashtable allocation Message-ID: <20180529175927.iyea653hpgnow6p2@linux-n805> References: <20180524211135.27760-1-dave@stgolabs.net> <20180524211135.27760-3-dave@stgolabs.net> <20180528094956.zaxusqqju3wtbdcz@gondor.apana.org.au> <20180529170338.7brp2m2k4gfqwf64@linux-n805> <20180529180428.l6yt6ae4oxbgrja6@gondor.apana.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180529180428.l6yt6ae4oxbgrja6@gondor.apana.org.au> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170421 (1.8.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 30 May 2018, Herbert Xu wrote: >It doesn't explain it at all. In fact I don't see why we neeed >three attempts, just do the GFP_NOFAIL as the second and final step. Second attempt is reduced size only as we don't want to GFP_NOFAIL if we can avoid it helping the allocator. We go from an arbitrary allocation to the smallest possible allocation, if all that fails ok lets use GFP_NOFAIL. I don't know how this is not clear... Thanks, Davidlohr