[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:40:22 +0900
From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/slub: don't wait for high-order page allocation
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 05:05:01PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 07-08-15 11:10:03, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> [...]
> > diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> > index 257283f..52b9025 100644
> > --- a/mm/slub.c
> > +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > @@ -1364,6 +1364,8 @@ static struct page *allocate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags, int node)
> > * so we fall-back to the minimum order allocation.
> > */
> > alloc_gfp = (flags | __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NORETRY) & ~__GFP_NOFAIL;
> > + if ((alloc_gfp & __GFP_WAIT) && oo_order(oo) > oo_order(s->min))
> > + alloc_gfp = (alloc_gfp | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC) & ~__GFP_WAIT;
>
> Wouldn't it be preferable to "fix" the __GFP_WAIT behavior than spilling
> __GFP_NOMEMALLOC around the kernel? GFP flags are getting harder and
> harder to use right and that is a signal we should thing about it and
> unclutter the current state.
Maybe, it is preferable. Could you try that?
Anyway, it is separate issue so I don't want pending this patch until
that change.
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists