From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:25:42 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] add __GFP_ZERO to GFP_LEVEL_MASK Message-Id: <20070724122542.d4ac734a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20070724120751.401bcbcb@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> References: <1185185020.8197.11.camel@twins> <20070723112143.GB19437@skynet.ie> <1185190711.8197.15.camel@twins> <1185256869.8197.27.camel@twins> <1185261894.8197.33.camel@twins> <20070724120751.401bcbcb@schroedinger.engr.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: Christoph Lameter Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Mel Gorman , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel , Daniel Phillips , linux-mm List-ID: On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:07:51 -0700 Christoph Lameter wrote: > Then there are some other flags. I am wondering why they are in > GFP_LEVEL_MASK? > > __GFP_COLD Does not make sense for slab allocators since we have > to touch the page immediately. > > __GFP_COMP No effect. Added by the page allocator on their own > if a higher order allocs are used for a slab. > > __GFP_MOVABLE The movability of a slab is determined by the > options specified at kmem_cache_create time. If this is > specified at kmalloc time then we will have some random > slabs movable and others not. Yes, they seem inappropriate. Especially the first two. -- 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