[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150807150501.GJ30785@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 17:05:01 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
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>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....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 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.
>
> page = alloc_slab_page(s, alloc_gfp, node, oo);
> if (unlikely(!page)) {
> --
> 1.9.1
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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