[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+CK2bCWkPDw-Aif6iXHq15Dpa+50hmrcAk_LpMCMk30zY5aFw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 00:24:30 -0500
From: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>, mike.kravetz@...cle.com,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] mm: honor PF_MEMALLOC_PIN for all movable pages
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 9:17 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri 11-12-20 15:21:38, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> [...]
> > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > index c2dea9ad0e98..4d8e7f801c66 100644
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -3802,16 +3802,12 @@ alloc_flags_nofragment(struct zone *zone, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > return alloc_flags;
> > }
> >
> > -static inline unsigned int current_alloc_flags(gfp_t gfp_mask,
> > - unsigned int alloc_flags)
> > +static inline unsigned int cma_alloc_flags(gfp_t gfp_mask,
> > + unsigned int alloc_flags)
>
> Do you have any strong reason to rename? Even though the current
Yes :)
> implementation only does something for cma I do not think this is all
> that important. The naming nicely fits with current_gfp_context so I
> would stick with it.
I am renaming because current->flags is removed from this function,
therefore keeping the name
becomes misleading. This function only addresses cma flag check
without looking at the thread local state now.
>
> Other than that the patch looks reasonable. I would just add a comment
> explaining that current_alloc_flags should be called _after_
> current_gfp_context because that one might change the gfp_mask.
Thanks, I will add it.
>
> With that addressed, feel free to add
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Thank you,
Pasha
Powered by blists - more mailing lists