Re: [PATCH] add __GFP_ZERO to GFP_LEVEL_MASK

[mel@skynet.ie (Mel Gorman)]

On (24/07/07 12:25), Andrew Morton didst pronounce:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:07:51 -0700
> Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> 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.

And the third one is also inappropriate by the definition of GFP_LEVEL_MASK
Christoph is using. If GFP_LEVEL_MASK is to be used to filter out flags
that are unsuitable for higher allocators such as slab and vmalloc, then
they shouldn't be using __GFP_MOVABLE because they are unlikely to do the
correct thing with the pages.

When the flags were added, I was treating GFP_LEVEL_MASK as a set of
allowed flags to the allocator.

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>