[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709061056270.13344@nuc-kabylake>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 10:59:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: js1304@...il.com
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/slub: wake up kswapd for initial high order
allocation
On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, js1304@...il.com wrote:
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -1578,8 +1578,12 @@ 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_DIRECT_RECLAIM) && oo_order(oo) > oo_order(s->min))
> - alloc_gfp = (alloc_gfp | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC) & ~(__GFP_RECLAIM|__GFP_NOFAIL);
> + if (oo_order(oo) > oo_order(s->min)) {
> + if (alloc_gfp & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM) {
> + alloc_gfp |= __GFP_NOMEMALLOC;
> + alloc_gfp &= ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM;
> + }
> + }
>
Can we come up with another inline function in gfp.h for this as well?
Well and needing these functions to manipulate flags actually indicates
that we may need a cleanup of the GFP flags at some point. There is a buch
of flags that disable things and some that enable things.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists