From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qc0-f170.google.com (mail-qc0-f170.google.com [209.85.216.170]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D91A06B006C for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 17:53:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by qcvs11 with SMTP id s11so16506894qcv.11 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:53:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from resqmta-ch2-01v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-01v.sys.comcast.net. [2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:33]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v8si5389625qas.121.2015.02.27.14.53.18 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:53:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:53:16 -0600 (CST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [patch v2 1/3] mm: remove GFP_THISNODE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: David Rientjes Cc: Andrew Morton , Vlastimil Babka , Pekka Enberg , Joonsoo Kim , Johannes Weiner , Mel Gorman , Pravin Shelar , Jarno Rajahalme , Li Zefan , Greg Thelen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, dev@openvswitch.org On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, David Rientjes wrote: > +/* > + * Construct gfp mask to allocate from a specific node but do not invoke reclaim > + * or warn about failures. > + */ We should be triggering reclaim from slab allocations. Why would we not do this? Otherwise we will be going uselessly off node for slab allocations. > +static inline gfp_t gfp_exact_node(gfp_t flags) > +{ > + return (flags | __GFP_THISNODE | __GFP_NOWARN) & ~__GFP_WAIT; > +} > #endif Reclaim needs to be triggered. In particular zone reclaim was made to be triggered from slab allocations to create more room if needed. -- 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