[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230104120436.nto7semvbrsvakjg@techsingularity.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2023 12:04:36 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] mm: discard __GFP_ATOMIC
On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 07:17:48PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > @@ -4081,13 +4081,14 @@ static inline bool zone_watermark_fast(struct zone *z, unsigned int order,
> > if (__zone_watermark_ok(z, order, mark, highest_zoneidx, alloc_flags,
> > free_pages))
> > return true;
> > +
> > /*
> > - * Ignore watermark boosting for GFP_ATOMIC order-0 allocations
> > + * Ignore watermark boosting for GFP_HIGH order-0 allocations
>
> There's no GFP_HIGH. We could either keep GFP_ATOMIC here if we want to talk
> about the high-level flag combo, or __GFP_HIGH if about the low-level
> detail. We're deep in the page allocator implementation so the latter would
> be OK.
>
Fixed
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists