From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 19:52:13 -0700 From: Paul Jackson Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Fragmentation Avoidance V17 Message-Id: <20051015195213.44e0dabb.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20051011151221.16178.67130.sendpatchset@skynet.csn.ul.ie> References: <20051011151221.16178.67130.sendpatchset@skynet.csn.ul.ie> 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: akpm@osdl.org, jschopp@austin.ibm.com, kravetz@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, lhms-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List-ID: Mel wrote: > +#define __GFP_USER 0x80000u /* User and other easily reclaimed pages */ > +#define __GFP_KERNRCLM 0x100000u /* Kernel page that is reclaimable */ Sorry, but that __GFP_USER name is still sticking in my craw. I won't try to reopen my quest to get it named __GFP_REALLY_REALLY_EASY_RCLM or whatever it was, but instead will venture on a new quest. Can we get the 'RCLM' in there. Especially since this term appears naked in such code as: > - page = alloc_page(GFP_HIGHUSER); > + page = alloc_page(GFP_HIGHUSER|__GFP_USER); where it is not at all obvious to the reader of this file (fs/exec.c) that the __GFP_USER term is commenting on the reclaim behaviour of the page to be allocated. I'd be happier with: > +#define __GFP_USERRCLM 0x80000u /* User and other easily reclaimed pages */ > +#define __GFP_KERNRCLM 0x100000u /* Kernel page that is reclaimable */ and: > - page = alloc_page(GFP_HIGHUSER); > + page = alloc_page(GFP_HIGHUSER|__GFP_USERRCLM); Also the bold assymetry of these two #defines seems to be without motivation, one with the 'RCLM', and the other with ' ' four spaces. -- 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