From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ie0-f180.google.com (mail-ie0-f180.google.com [209.85.223.180]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 708866B0036 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 18:24:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f180.google.com with SMTP id at20so7236589iec.25 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:24:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-x235.google.com (mail-ie0-x235.google.com [2607:f8b0:4001:c03::235]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o6si19338895igi.0.2014.07.28.15.24.25 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:24:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f181.google.com with SMTP id rp18so7469275iec.40 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:24:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:24:22 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes Subject: Re: [patch] mm, thp: restructure thp avoidance of light synchronous migration In-Reply-To: <53D60F31.4050504@suse.cz> Message-ID: References: <53D60F31.4050504@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Rik van Riel , Johannes Weiner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On Mon, 28 Jul 2014, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > Looks like kind of a shotgun approach to me. A single __GFP_NO_KSWAPD bullet > is no longer enough, so we use all the flags and hope for the best. It seems > THP has so many flags it should be unique for now, but I wonder if there is a > better way to say how much an allocation is willing to wait. > We would have to introduce a new __GFP_FAULT bit to distinguish between allocations at pagefault that should not use synchronous memory compaction solely for this case, it's probably not worth it. -- 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