Kernel/linux
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git synced 2024-12-28 16:53:49 +00:00
Code Issues Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

docs: core-api/gfp_mask-from-fs-io: indicate that vmalloc supports GFP_NOFS/GFP_NOIO

Browse Source 
After the commit 451769ebb7 ("mm/vmalloc: alloc GFP_NO{FS,IO} for
vmalloc") in v5.17 it is now safe to use GFP_NOFS/GFP_NOIO flags
in [k]vmalloc, let's reflect it in documentation.

Signed-off-by: Pavel Tikhomirov <ptikhomirov@virtuozzo.com>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241119093922.567138-1-ptikhomirov@virtuozzo.com
This commit is contained in:
Pavel Tikhomirov 2024-11-19 17:39:01 +08:00 committed by Jonathan Corbet
parent 9e6c5870bb
commit 21e500138b
1 changed files with 11 additions and 9 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

20
Documentation/core-api/gfp_mask-from-fs-io.rst
View File

@ -55,14 +55,16 @@ scope.
What about __vmalloc(GFP_NOFS)
==============================
vmalloc doesn't support GFP_NOFS semantic because there are hardcoded
GFP_KERNEL allocations deep inside the allocator which are quite non-trivial
to fix up. That means that calling ``vmalloc`` with GFP_NOFS/GFP_NOIO is
almost always a bug. The good news is that the NOFS/NOIO semantic can be
achieved by the scope API.
Since v5.17, and specifically after the commit 451769ebb7e79 ("mm/vmalloc:
alloc GFP_NO{FS,IO} for vmalloc"), GFP_NOFS/GFP_NOIO are now supported in
``[k]vmalloc`` by implicitly using scope API.
In earlier kernels ``vmalloc`` didn't support GFP_NOFS semantic because there
were hardcoded GFP_KERNEL allocations deep inside the allocator. That means
that calling ``vmalloc`` with GFP_NOFS/GFP_NOIO was almost always a bug.
In the ideal world, upper layers should already mark dangerous contexts
and so no special care is required and vmalloc should be called without
any problems. Sometimes if the context is not really clear or there are
layering violations then the recommended way around that is to wrap ``vmalloc``
by the scope API with a comment explaining the problem.
and so no special care is required and ``vmalloc`` should be called without any
problems. Sometimes if the context is not really clear or there are layering
violations then the recommended way around that (on pre-v5.17 kernels) is to
wrap ``vmalloc`` by the scope API with a comment explaining the problem.