[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090423002934.GC26643@csn.ul.ie>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 01:29:35 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
Zhang Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/22] Use allocation flags as an index to the zone
watermark
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 01:06:07PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2009, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > index b174f2c..6030f49 100644
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -1154,10 +1154,15 @@ failed:
> > return NULL;
> > }
> >
> > -#define ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS 0x01 /* don't check watermarks at all */
> > -#define ALLOC_WMARK_MIN 0x02 /* use pages_min watermark */
> > -#define ALLOC_WMARK_LOW 0x04 /* use pages_low watermark */
> > -#define ALLOC_WMARK_HIGH 0x08 /* use pages_high watermark */
> > +/* The WMARK bits are used as an index zone->pages_mark */
> > +#define ALLOC_WMARK_MIN 0x00 /* use pages_min watermark */
> > +#define ALLOC_WMARK_LOW 0x01 /* use pages_low watermark */
> > +#define ALLOC_WMARK_HIGH 0x02 /* use pages_high watermark */
> > +#define ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS 0x04 /* don't check watermarks at all */
> > +
> > +/* Mask to get the watermark bits */
> > +#define ALLOC_WMARK_MASK (ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS-1)
> > +
> > #define ALLOC_HARDER 0x10 /* try to alloc harder */
> > #define ALLOC_HIGH 0x20 /* __GFP_HIGH set */
> > #define ALLOC_CPUSET 0x40 /* check for correct cpuset */
>
> The watermark flags should probably be members of an anonymous enum since
> they're being used as an index into an array. If another watermark were
> ever to be added it would require a value of 0x03, for instance.
>
> enum {
> ALLOC_WMARK_MIN,
> ALLOC_WMARK_LOW,
> ALLOC_WMARK_HIGH,
>
> ALLOC_WMARK_MASK = 0xf /* no more than 16 possible watermarks */
> };
>
> This eliminates ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS and the caller that uses it would
> simply pass 0.
>
I'm missing something here. If ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS was defined as zero
then thing like this break.
if (likely(!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOMEMALLOC))) {
if (!in_interrupt() &&
((p->flags & PF_MEMALLOC) ||
unlikely(test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE))))
alloc_flags |= ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS;
}
Also, the ALLOC_HARDER and other alloc flags need to be redefined for
ALLOC_WMARK_MASK == 0xf. I know what you are getting at but it's a bit more
involved than you're making out and I'm not seeing an advantage.
> > @@ -1445,12 +1450,7 @@ zonelist_scan:
> >
> > if (!(alloc_flags & ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS)) {
>
> This would become
>
> if (alloc_flags & ALLOC_WMARK_MASK)
>
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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