[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1503020944200.5540@gentwo.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 09:46:33 -0600 (CST)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
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 Mon, 2 Mar 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> So it would be IMHO better for longer-term maintainability to have the
> relevant __GFP_THISNODE callers pass also __GFP_NO_KSWAPD to denote these
> opportunistic allocation attempts, instead of having this subtle semantic
You are thinking about an opportunistic allocation attempt in SLAB?
AFAICT SLAB allocations should trigger reclaim.
--
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