[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160512162043.GA4261@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 18:20:45 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 06/13] mm, thp: remove __GFP_NORETRY from khugepaged and
madvised allocations
On Tue 10-05-16 09:35:56, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/include/linux/gfp.h b/include/linux/gfp.h
> index 570383a41853..0cb09714d960 100644
> --- a/include/linux/gfp.h
> +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h
> @@ -256,8 +256,7 @@ struct vm_area_struct;
> #define GFP_HIGHUSER (GFP_USER | __GFP_HIGHMEM)
> #define GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE (GFP_HIGHUSER | __GFP_MOVABLE)
> #define GFP_TRANSHUGE ((GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE | __GFP_COMP | \
> - __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN) & \
> - ~__GFP_RECLAIM)
> + __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | __GFP_NOWARN) & ~__GFP_RECLAIM)
I am not sure this is the right thing to do. I think we should keep
__GFP_NORETRY and clear it where we want a stronger semantic. This is
just too suble that all callsites are doing the right thing.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists