From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B45ABC2BA16 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 19:41:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89CD52080C for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 19:41:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="o9LayuFg" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727990AbgDCTly (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Apr 2020 15:41:54 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-f68.google.com ([209.85.216.68]:55265 "EHLO mail-pj1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727792AbgDCTly (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Apr 2020 15:41:54 -0400 Received: by mail-pj1-f68.google.com with SMTP id np9so3448637pjb.4 for ; Fri, 03 Apr 2020 12:41:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id:references :user-agent:mime-version; bh=RbHDsHw524llOarwKUky8DPquFPK39k02zZxPLpgMOs=; b=o9LayuFgKoBojXjlwS/oiXjN8tTU2CWVtgI2vVG5IVreC6cv7JAJ814tPbdeVrolfv hP+EA9GQktkMzNRkdlIsKpuzGGCUI5Kmm42QkeskOcEUCj7J1mcceNaJ14haAl05k5gP ESQm83kGg1bqr463HiF/3yJrzScmhi96fkCiEyDeTVqJDsZToHzV6d4pmugDAV9Fa7Tw QwYHlTfpPd38vQjW3zP95Wg9Nis9KDvYfCyop5c9CNfIIKai8JxX/JOSjJp6/cdYktpt brfMrUAfcdXlbCqX7pvRr1XRuMNOwNyMtik5cl6tH2oUse/MCxQoA9h/mNAynTmT6V4Y zyOQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id :references:user-agent:mime-version; bh=RbHDsHw524llOarwKUky8DPquFPK39k02zZxPLpgMOs=; b=efTYyz+HpNTgZZ3fyagBFUzBRntyZ/IzDIScJXIN1epEQ1VEmafwIpfcRXAqQQjI+h HK/HA1c52cXxUKDmXhdN7owExPsF+7SJnpPCIbXGDl1LhKSWTE2DMag/FbKpQBrICoRP lut2JPmGuOalhdUkFuynFo8Rcdlwm95TUvBKs3JBtHbkBjoHsvz4k8REBPMNorPtAhxe cEbF1cJcfiXgfXQ1R3Vp2gEIMkfQtREbY4Mj3Ci8BCs28ZmTKS9XNwqnbUvFGkGuXHim f20T5f4x3zRuBNZhiB0In/ZpMs/y3X8ygxBPC0TvIzUqRIe5Y5Rut6VveoZi+lyx3wXh an6Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0Puasqp93teXW+a+5ZT62biqNJwLvaKM6M/MPw85PKqredH+tNuPg rXR8XLoTERsjNgQAKIQJROo5bQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypKLZQh9aewTTYEjX9w87lyllSCPeYXK9v837ePzcHyqrZQT06a1Ayvitx1lVTs0mEx+/fYg1g== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:902:: with SMTP id n2mr11503771pjn.169.1585942912598; Fri, 03 Apr 2020 12:41:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [2620:15c:17:3:3a5:23a7:5e32:4598] ([2620:15c:17:3:3a5:23a7:5e32:4598]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h34sm3131100pjb.47.2020.04.03.12.41.51 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 03 Apr 2020 12:41:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 12:41:51 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: Michal Hocko cc: Andrew Morton , Joel Fernandes , "Paul E. McKenney" , Neil Brown , linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML , Michal Hocko , "Paul E . McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: make it clear that gfp reclaim modifiers are valid only for sleepable allocations In-Reply-To: <20200403083543.11552-3-mhocko@kernel.org> Message-ID: References: <20200403083543.11552-1-mhocko@kernel.org> <20200403083543.11552-3-mhocko@kernel.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 3 Apr 2020, Michal Hocko wrote: > From: Michal Hocko > > While it might be really clear to MM developers that gfp reclaim > modifiers are applicable only to sleepable allocations (those with > __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM) it seems that actual users of the API are not > always sure. Make it explicit that they are not applicable for > GFP_NOWAIT or GFP_ATOMIC allocations which are the most commonly used > non-sleepable allocation masks. > > Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko Acked-by: David Rientjes