From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f71.google.com (mail-wm0-f71.google.com [74.125.82.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAF156B02E1 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 03:40:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f71.google.com with SMTP id b20so2691657wma.11 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:40:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s80si4871810wme.160.2017.04.28.00.40.33 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:40:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 09:40:29 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Remove hardcoding of ___GFP_xxx bitmasks Message-ID: <20170428074028.GF8143@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20170426133549.22603-1-igor.stoppa@huawei.com> <20170426133549.22603-2-igor.stoppa@huawei.com> <20170426144750.GH12504@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170427134158.GI4706@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Igor Stoppa Cc: namhyung@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu 27-04-17 17:06:05, Igor Stoppa wrote: > > > On 27/04/17 16:41, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 26-04-17 18:29:08, Igor Stoppa wrote: > > [...] > >> If you prefer to have this patch only as part of the larger patchset, > >> I'm also fine with it. > > > > I agree that the situation is not ideal. If a larger set of changes > > would benefit from this change then it would clearly add arguments... > > Ok, then I'll send it out as part of the larger RFC set. > > > >> Also, if you could reply to [1], that would be greatly appreciated. > > > > I will try to get to it but from a quick glance, yet-another-zone will > > hit a lot of opposition... > > The most basic questions, that I hope can be answered with Yes/No =) are: > > - should a new zone be added after DMA32? > > - should I try hard to keep the mask fitting a 32bit word - at least for > hose who do not use the new zone - or is it ok to just stretch it to 64 > bits? Do not add a new zone, really. What you seem to be looking for is an allocator on top of the page/memblock allocator which does write protection on top. I understand that you would like to avoid object management duplication but I am not really sure how much you can re-use what slab allocators do already, anyway. I will respond to the original thread to not mix things together. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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