From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 13:43:46 -0300 (BRT) From: Marcelo Tosatti Subject: Re: [PATCH] allocation looping + kswapd CPU cycles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Mark Hemment Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, 10 May 2001, Mark Hemment wrote: > > On Wed, 9 May 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > On Wed, 9 May 2001, Mark Hemment wrote: > > > Could introduce another allocation flag (__GFP_FAIL?) which is or'ed > > > with a __GFP_WAIT to limit the looping? > > > > __GFP_FAIL is in the -ac tree already and it is being used by the bounce > > buffer allocation code. > > Thanks for the pointer. > > For non-zero order allocations, the test against __GFP_FAIL is a little > too soon; it would be better after we've tried to reclaim pages from the > inactive-clean list. Any nasty side effects to this? No. __GFP_FAIL can to try to reclaim pages from inactive clean. We just want to avoid __GFP_FAIL allocations from going to try_to_free_pages(). > Plus, the code still prevents PF_MEMALLOC processes from using the > inactive-clean list for non-zero order allocations. As the trend seems to > be to make zero and non-zero allocations 'equivalent', shouldn't this > restriction to lifted? I don't see any problem about making non-zero allocations be able to directly reclaim pages. -- 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.eu.org/Linux-MM/