From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 10 May 2001 07:49:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 10 May 2001 07:49:50 -0400 Received: from bacchus.veritas.com ([204.177.156.37]:43197 "EHLO bacchus-int.veritas.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 10 May 2001 07:49:42 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 09:41:45 +0100 (BST) From: Mark Hemment To: Marcelo Tosatti cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] allocation looping + kswapd CPU cycles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 9 May 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Wed, 9 May 2001, Mark Hemment wrote: > > Could introduce another allocation flag (__GFP_FAIL?) which is or'ed > > with a __GFP_WAIT to limit the looping? > > __GFP_FAIL is in the -ac tree already and it is being used by the bounce > buffer allocation code. Thanks for the pointer. For non-zero order allocations, the test against __GFP_FAIL is a little too soon; it would be better after we've tried to reclaim pages from the inactive-clean list. Any nasty side effects to this? Plus, the code still prevents PF_MEMALLOC processes from using the inactive-clean list for non-zero order allocations. As the trend seems to be to make zero and non-zero allocations 'equivalent', shouldn't this restriction to lifted? Mark