From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 20:52:04 +0100 From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" Subject: Re: [PATCH] allocation looping + kswapd CPU cycles Message-ID: <20010510205204.O16590@redhat.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from marcelo@conectiva.com.br on Thu, May 10, 2001 at 01:43:46PM -0300 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Marcelo Tosatti Cc: Mark Hemment , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Hi, On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 01:43:46PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > No. __GFP_FAIL can to try to reclaim pages from inactive clean. > > We just want to avoid __GFP_FAIL allocations from going to > try_to_free_pages(). Why? __GFP_FAIL is only useful as an indication that the caller has some magic mechanism for coping with failure. There's no other information passed, so a brief call to try_to_free_pages is quite appropriate. --Stephen -- 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.eu.org/Linux-MM/