From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:26:00 -0700 From: Paul Jackson Subject: Re: [Lhms-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/9] add defrag flags Message-Id: <20050927092600.2e9c7b47.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: References: <4338537E.8070603@austin.ibm.com> <43385412.5080506@austin.ibm.com> <21024267-29C3-4657-9C45-17D186EAD808@mac.com> <1127780648.10315.12.camel@localhost> <20050926224439.056eaf8d.pj@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Mel Gorman Cc: haveblue@us.ibm.com, mrmacman_g4@mac.com, jschopp@austin.ibm.com, akpm@osdl.org, lhms-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kravetz@us.ibm.com List-ID: Mel wrote: > > If you have good reason to keep __GFP_USER meanin either user or buffer, > > then perhaps the name __GFP_USER is misleading. > > > > Possibly but we are stuck for terminology here. It's hard to think of a > good term that reflects the intention. You make several good points. How about: * Rename __GFP_USER to __GFP_EASYRCLM * Shift the two __GFP_*RCLM flags up to 0x80000u and 0x100000u * Leave __GFP_BITS_SHIFT at the 21 in your patch (and fix its comment) (or should we go up the next nibble, to 24?). This results in the two key GFP defines being: #define __GFP_EASYRCLM 0x80000u /* Easily reclaimed user or buffer page */ #define __GFP_KERNRCLM 0x100000u /* Reclaimable kernel page */ -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.925.600.0401 -- 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