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 j6C5P48M014486 for ; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 01:25:04 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.7) with ESMTP id j6C5P4wY234010 for ; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 01:25:04 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j6C5P4mk008674 for ; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 01:25:04 -0400 Subject: Re: [Fwd: [PATCH 2/4] cpusets new __GFP_HARDWALL flag] From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: <20050711195540.681182d0.pj@sgi.com> References: <1121101013.15095.19.camel@localhost> <42D2AE0F.8020809@austin.ibm.com> <20050711195540.681182d0.pj@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:24:55 -0700 Message-Id: <1121145895.5446.1.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Paul Jackson Cc: Joel Schopp , linux-mm , mel@csn.ul.ie List-ID: On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 19:55 -0700, Paul Jackson wrote: > One question. I've not actually read the memory fragmentation > avoidance patch, so this might be a stupid question. That > notwithstanding, do you really need two flags, one KERN and one USER? > Or would one flag be sufficient - to mark USER pages. Unmarked pages > would be KERN, presumably. One really only needs 2 bits if one has > 3 or 4 states to track -- if that's the case, it's not clear to me > what those 3 or 4 states are (maybe if I actually read the patch it > would be clear ;). There are four types, but it only consumes two GFP bits. It's correctly packed. -- 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