From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:30:55 -0700 From: Paul Jackson Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] add defrag flags Message-Id: <20050927123055.0ad9c2b4.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <433991A0.7000803@austin.ibm.com> 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> <433991A0.7000803@austin.ibm.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: Joel Schopp Cc: haveblue@us.ibm.com, mrmacman_g4@mac.com, akpm@osdl.org, lhms-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mel@csn.ul.ie, kravetz@us.ibm.com List-ID: Joel wrote: > We may not be able to use the same flag after all due to our need to mark buffer > pages as user. Agreed - we have separate flags. I want exactly user address space pages. You want really easy to reclaim pages. You have good performance justifications for your choice. I have just "design purity", so if for some reason there was a dire shortage of GFP bits, I suspect it is I who should give, not you. > > +#define __GFP_BITS_SHIFT 21 /* Room for 20 __GFP_FOO bits */ > > Yep. Once this is merged with current Linux, which already has GFP_HARDWALL, I presume you will be back up to 21 bits, code and comment. As I noted in another message the "USER" and the comment in: #define __GFP_USER 0x40000u /* User is a userspace user */ are a bit misleading now. Perhaps GFP_EASYRCLM? -- 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