From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932994AbbIYTBz (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Sep 2015 15:01:55 -0400 Received: from gum.cmpxchg.org ([85.214.110.215]:47117 "EHLO gum.cmpxchg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932786AbbIYTBy (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Sep 2015 15:01:54 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 15:01:38 -0400 From: Johannes Weiner To: Mel Gorman Cc: Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , Vlastimil Babka , David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , Michal Hocko , Linux-MM , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] mm, page_alloc: Distinguish between being unable to sleep, unwilling to sleep and avoiding waking kswapd Message-ID: <20150925190138.GA16359@cmpxchg.org> References: <1442832762-7247-1-git-send-email-mgorman@techsingularity.net> <1442832762-7247-6-git-send-email-mgorman@techsingularity.net> <20150924205509.GI3009@cmpxchg.org> <20150925125106.GG3068@techsingularity.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150925125106.GG3068@techsingularity.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 01:51:06PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 04:55:09PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:52:37AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > @@ -119,10 +134,10 @@ struct vm_area_struct; > > > #define GFP_USER (__GFP_WAIT | __GFP_IO | __GFP_FS | __GFP_HARDWALL) > > > #define GFP_HIGHUSER (GFP_USER | __GFP_HIGHMEM) > > > #define GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE (GFP_HIGHUSER | __GFP_MOVABLE) > > > -#define GFP_IOFS (__GFP_IO | __GFP_FS) > > > -#define GFP_TRANSHUGE (GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE | __GFP_COMP | \ > > > - __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN | \ > > > - __GFP_NO_KSWAPD) > > > +#define GFP_IOFS (__GFP_IO | __GFP_FS | __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM) > > > > These are some really odd semantics to be given a name like that. > > > > GFP_IOFS was introduced as a short-hand for testing/setting/clearing > > these two bits at the same time, not to be used for allocations. In > > fact, the only user for allocations is lustre, and it's not at all > > obious why those sites shouldn't include __GFP_WAIT as well. > > > > Removing this definition altogether would probably be best. > > Ok, I'll add a TODO to create a patch that removes GFP_IOFS entirely. It > can be tacked on to the end of the series. Okay, that makes sense to me. Thanks! Acked-by: Johannes Weiner