From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/30] mm: __GFP_MEMALLOC From: Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: <20080725180305.86A9.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20080724140042.408642539@chello.nl> <20080724141530.060638861@chello.nl> <20080725180305.86A9.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:35:35 +0200 Message-Id: <1216978535.7257.356.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no, Daniel Lezcano , Pekka Enberg , Neil Brown List-ID: On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 18:29 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > Hi Peter, > > > __GFP_MEMALLOC will allow the allocation to disregard the watermarks, > > much like PF_MEMALLOC. > > > > It allows one to pass along the memalloc state in object related allocation > > flags as opposed to task related flags, such as sk->sk_allocation. > > Is this properly name? > page alloc is always "mem alloc". > > you wrote comment as "Use emergency reserves" and > this flag works to turn on ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS. > > then, __GFP_NO_WATERMARK or __GFP_EMERGENCY are better? We've been through this pick a better name thing several times :-/ Yes I agree, __GFP_MEMALLOC is a misnomer, however its consistent with PF_MEMALLOC and __GFP_NOMEMALLOC - of which people know the semantics. Creating a new name with similar semantics can only serve to confuse. So unless enough people think its worth renaming all of them, I think we're better off with this name. -- 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: email@kvack.org