From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4379A1C4.509@yahoo.com.au> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:52:20 +1100 From: Nick Piggin MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/05] mm fix __alloc_pages cpuset ALLOC_* flags References: <20051114040329.13951.39891.sendpatchset@jackhammer.engr.sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20051114040329.13951.39891.sendpatchset@jackhammer.engr.sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Paul Jackson Cc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Simon Derr , Christoph Lameter , "Rohit, Seth" List-ID: Paul Jackson wrote: > Two changes to the setting of the ALLOC_CPUSET flag in > mm/page_alloc.c:__alloc_pages() > > 1) A bug fix - the "ignoring mins" case should not be honoring > ALLOC_CPUSET. This case of all cases, since it is handling a > request that will free up more memory than is asked for (exiting > tasks, e.g.) should be allowed to escape cpuset constraints > when memory is tight. > > 2) A logic change to make it simpler. Honor cpusets even on > GFP_ATOMIC (!wait) requests. With this, cpuset confinement > applies to all requests except ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS, so that > in a subsequent cleanup patch, I can remove the ALLOC_CPUSET > flag entirely. Since I don't know any real reason this > logic has to be either way, I am choosing the path of the > simplest code. > Hi, I think #1 is OK, however I was under the impression that you introduced the exception reverted in #2 due to seeing atomic allocation failures?! -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com -- 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