From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make GFP_NOTRACK flag unconditional
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 21:02:45 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1210152102220.5400@chino.kir.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1210022156450.8723@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On Tue, 2 Oct 2012, David Rientjes wrote:
> > There was a general sentiment in a recent discussion (See
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/18/258) that the __GFP flags should be
> > defined unconditionally. Currently, the only offender is GFP_NOTRACK,
> > which is conditional to KMEMCHECK.
> >
> > This simple patch makes it unconditional.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
> > CC: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
> > CC: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
> > CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
>
> Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
>
> I think it was done this way to show that if CONFIG_KMEMCHECK=n then the
> bit could be reused for something else but I can't think of any reason why
> that would be useful; what would need to add a gfp bit that would also
> happen to depend on CONFIG_KMEMCHECK=n? Nothing comes to mind to save a
> bit.
>
> There are other cases of this as well, like __GFP_OTHER_NODE which is only
> useful for thp and it's defined unconditionally. So this seems fine to
> me.
>
Still missing from linux-next as of this morning, I think this patch
should be merged.
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-16 4:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-09-28 9:56 Glauber Costa
2012-09-28 13:19 ` Mel Gorman
2012-09-28 14:28 ` Christoph Lameter
2012-09-28 14:29 ` Glauber Costa
2012-09-28 16:40 ` Christoph Lameter
2012-10-03 5:00 ` David Rientjes
2012-10-16 4:02 ` David Rientjes [this message]
2012-10-16 4:40 ` Andrew Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.DEB.2.00.1210152102220.5400@chino.kir.corp.google.com \
--to=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=glommer@parallels.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox