@@ -55,14 +55,16 @@ scope.
5555What about __vmalloc(GFP_NOFS)
5656==============================
5757
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.
6365
6466In 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