From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qg0-f44.google.com (mail-qg0-f44.google.com [209.85.192.44]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B95C96B0038 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 10:46:36 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-qg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id z107so5416906qgd.3 for ; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 07:46:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from resqmta-ch2-12v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-12v.sys.comcast.net. [2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:44]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c91si11856943qgc.92.2015.03.02.07.46.35 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 02 Mar 2015 07:46:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 09:46:33 -0600 (CST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [patch v2 1/3] mm: remove GFP_THISNODE In-Reply-To: <54F469C1.9090601@suse.cz> Message-ID: References: <54F469C1.9090601@suse.cz> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Vlastimil Babka Cc: David Rientjes , Andrew Morton , 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 Mon, 2 Mar 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > So it would be IMHO better for longer-term maintainability to have the > relevant __GFP_THISNODE callers pass also __GFP_NO_KSWAPD to denote these > opportunistic allocation attempts, instead of having this subtle semantic You are thinking about an opportunistic allocation attempt in SLAB? AFAICT SLAB allocations should trigger reclaim. -- 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