From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e1.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j6BHn6fG003850 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:49:06 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.7) with ESMTP id j6BHn6wY227142 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:49:06 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j6BHn6X6013464 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:49:06 -0400 Subject: Re: [Fwd: [PATCH 2/4] cpusets new __GFP_HARDWALL flag] From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: <42D2AE0F.8020809@austin.ibm.com> References: <1121101013.15095.19.camel@localhost> <42D2AE0F.8020809@austin.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:49:02 -0700 Message-Id: <1121104142.15095.30.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Joel Schopp Cc: Paul Jackson , linux-mm , Mel Gorman List-ID: On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 12:36 -0500, Joel Schopp wrote: > Dave Hansen brought this to my attention. I've attached the bit of the > memory fragmentation avoidance you conflict with (I'm working with Mel > on his patches). I think we share similar goals, and I wouldn't mind > changing __GFP_USERRCLM to __GFP_USERALLOC or some neutral name we could > share. Anything to increase the chances of fragmentation avoidance > getting merged is good in my book. The nice part about using __GFP_USER as the name is that it describes how it's going to be used rather than how the kernel is going to treat it. Somebody making a random allocator call is much more likely to know how they're going to use it than how the kernel _should_. -- Dave -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org