@@ -55,14 +55,16 @@ scope.
55
55
What about __vmalloc(GFP_NOFS)
56
56
==============================
57
57
58
- vmalloc doesn't support GFP_NOFS semantic because there are hardcoded
59
- GFP_KERNEL allocations deep inside the allocator which are quite non-trivial
60
- to fix up. That means that calling ``vmalloc `` with GFP_NOFS/GFP_NOIO is
61
- almost always a bug. The good news is that the NOFS/NOIO semantic can be
62
- achieved by the scope API.
58
+ Since v5.17, and specifically after the commit 451769ebb7e79 ("mm/vmalloc:
59
+ alloc GFP_NO{FS,IO} for vmalloc"), GFP_NOFS/GFP_NOIO are now supported in
60
+ ``[k]vmalloc `` by implicitly using scope API.
61
+
62
+ In earlier kernels ``vmalloc `` didn't support GFP_NOFS semantic because there
63
+ were hardcoded GFP_KERNEL allocations deep inside the allocator. That means
64
+ that calling ``vmalloc `` with GFP_NOFS/GFP_NOIO was almost always a bug.
63
65
64
66
In the ideal world, upper layers should already mark dangerous contexts
65
- and so no special care is required and vmalloc should be called without
66
- any problems. Sometimes if the context is not really clear or there are
67
- layering violations then the recommended way around that is to wrap `` vmalloc ``
68
- by the scope API with a comment explaining the problem.
67
+ and so no special care is required and `` vmalloc `` should be called without any
68
+ problems. Sometimes if the context is not really clear or there are layering
69
+ violations then the recommended way around that (on pre-v5.17 kernels) is to
70
+ wrap `` vmalloc `` by the scope API with a comment explaining the problem.
0 commit comments