[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200407013855.GA11326@google.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2020 21:38:55 -0400
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: make it clear that gfp reclaim modifiers are
valid only for sleepable allocations
On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 12:41:51PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Apr 2020, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> >
> > While it might be really clear to MM developers that gfp reclaim
> > modifiers are applicable only to sleepable allocations (those with
> > __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM) it seems that actual users of the API are not
> > always sure. Make it explicit that they are not applicable for
> > GFP_NOWAIT or GFP_ATOMIC allocations which are the most commonly used
> > non-sleepable allocation masks.
> >
> > Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
>
> Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
thanks,
- Joel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists