[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1f089a155d7501fb156da34744d282ae1f3d02f7.camel@surriel.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 14:03:39 -0500
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: hughd@...gle.com, xuyu@...ux.alibaba.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mgorman@...e.de, aarcange@...hat.com,
willy@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...com, linux-mm@...ck.org, vbabka@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm,thp,shm: limit gfp mask to no more than specified
On Fri, 2020-11-27 at 08:52 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 26-11-20 13:04:14, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > I would be more than happy to implement things differently,
> > but I am not sure what alternative you are suggesting.
>
> Simply do not alter gfp flags? Or warn in some cases of a serious
> mismatch.
> E.g. GFP_ZONEMASK mismatch because there are already GFP_KERNEL users
> of
> shmem.
Not altering the gfp flags is not really an option,
because that would leads to attempting to allocate THPs
with GFP_HIGHUSER, which is what is used to allocate
regular tmpfs pages.
If the THP configuration in sysfs says we should
not
be doing compaction/reclaim from THP allocations, we
should obey that configuration setting, and use a
gfp_flags that results in no compaction/reclaim being done.
--
All Rights Reversed.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists