[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1502271649060.20876@gentwo.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:53:16 -0600 (CST)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Pravin Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com>,
Jarno Rajahalme <jrajahalme@...ira.com>,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, dev@...nvswitch.org
Subject: Re: [patch v2 1/3] mm: remove GFP_THISNODE
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, David Rientjes wrote:
> +/*
> + * Construct gfp mask to allocate from a specific node but do not invoke reclaim
> + * or warn about failures.
> + */
We should be triggering reclaim from slab allocations. Why would we not do
this?
Otherwise we will be going uselessly off node for slab allocations.
> +static inline gfp_t gfp_exact_node(gfp_t flags)
> +{
> + return (flags | __GFP_THISNODE | __GFP_NOWARN) & ~__GFP_WAIT;
> +}
> #endif
Reclaim needs to be triggered. In particular zone reclaim was made to be
triggered from slab allocations to create more room if needed.
--
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