From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261991AbVANOc6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:32:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261999AbVANOc6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:32:58 -0500 Received: from adsl-298.mirage.euroweb.hu ([193.226.239.42]:44173 "EHLO dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261991AbVANOcz (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:32:55 -0500 To: aia21@cam.ac.uk CC: akpm@osdl.org, torvalds@osdl.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-reply-to: (message from Anton Altaparmakov on Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:14:12 +0000 (GMT)) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/11] FUSE - core References: Message-Id: From: Miklos Szeredi Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:32:33 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > I prefer the _NOFS regardless (and others will probably disagree) because > it also means that if a machine is seriously running out of memory the fs > will give up with -ENOMEM much more readily with _NOFS rather than > increasing the memory pressure even further. As I said, others probably > disagree with me... Then you are suggesting to add __GFP_NORETRY, to all my allocations. That's may well be a valid argument, if we want to treat userspace filesystems less critical, than other things. Adding _NOFS in the case where no deadlock is possible makes things worse not better, since you are limiting the allocation from performing I/O. It's clearly a losing situation. Thanks, Miklos