From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 13:54:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix hugetlb pool allocation with empty nodes - V2 -> V3 In-Reply-To: <1178743039.5047.85.camel@localhost> Message-ID: References: <20070503022107.GA13592@kryten> <1178310543.5236.43.camel@localhost> <1178728661.5047.64.camel@localhost> <29495f1d0705091259t2532358ana4defb7c4e2a7560@mail.gmail.com> <1178743039.5047.85.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Lee Schermerhorn Cc: Nish Aravamudan , Anton Blanchard , linux-mm@kvack.org, ak@suse.de, mel@csn.ul.ie, apw@shadowen.org, Andrew Morton , Eric Whitney , William Lee Irwin III List-ID: On Wed, 9 May 2007, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > > > > > + page = alloc_pages_node(nid, > > > + GFP_HIGHUSER|__GFP_COMP|GFP_THISNODE, > > > + HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER); > > > > Are we taking out the GFP_NOWARN for a reason? I noticed this in > > Anton's patch, but forgot to ask. > > Actually, I hadn't noticed, but a quick look shows that GFP_THISNODE > contains the __GFP_NOWARN flag, as well as '_NORETRY which I think is > OK/desirable. It is required because GFP_THISNODE needs to fail if it cannot get memory from the right node. -- 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