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=-9.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no 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 3E828C43331 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 22:59:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05D1221D6C for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 22:59:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="dtYwGqUd" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727023AbfKGW7Z (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Nov 2019 17:59:25 -0500 Received: from mail-pg1-f194.google.com ([209.85.215.194]:42192 "EHLO mail-pg1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725912AbfKGW7Z (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Nov 2019 17:59:25 -0500 Received: by mail-pg1-f194.google.com with SMTP id q17so2883188pgt.9 for ; Thu, 07 Nov 2019 14:59:24 -0800 (PST) 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=37vI10OHhl6jTWakhwjHOMGsND4W8xXva1kflTIfn38=; b=dtYwGqUdV/ud8EBTtvRx9lACRPP1qeX43CnljOG38jYD7jROnBiWhNBRYUGY92WPP1 6EQrU41QGMXDaeuIBkUKA2wXlNpqPSa4MVtRFIH8KmBfmmNFfm5/zLdlpkofeKwu7DJU /vp26rzZuLL4wIrr/G3XCGkCjQxhXMgUpKJ3Kj3ScoOSdPX2IDNQjhW+B24FrZMynEL+ 44wghqpRVhS8otrnSAO2YqA3xJfHwScHYZTmcWs7WbyIcjjVgS8H/YlG3GS97/Tm0rf2 TWxDpTY9daAg9sMSa72Uyd9jkbEyY/QsFLITh9X6AE+rF5rv20MpOrSjRXRxDtzxhpRR hLcA== 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=37vI10OHhl6jTWakhwjHOMGsND4W8xXva1kflTIfn38=; b=iWd8zj3ZCao5f4OrMtdEagBg8viBAvUE3fH06jJrP0AfiKJVCqSHjpEndnSqjqr1vh 4Uwie+YuMJj0Q4rtY9zRQJ44gkRBIP0Xmbc0mqGq6L02EDkZJPUX2UhdNI7gbr/Pw7nQ hCQnDbGR6RYa+8a6KeO9/QxzatEz0Ayh2v1hc+bRqKLtVyfhVLVEvfb4XrkwtYbVDJNM yJEu/OtJjY6MGgQMZ16+GvrvHmFCbl+1UhKghaD0YwRLQ8XFVG3vPl5iwcg3AM5L8iLA Nh1TynTZ190uUg95A5w2669jNyIIZUnL4jftPcVxfpWwllnPXRxaTRYk2cgI7UTSit/W 3bSw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUI6GzDkbPhQ5VYoYnEOKwa330UWs1LTqPnJ7ovGGcxe8NIotVU 7GvpmZuHSIp6WDBHYZrDM3M3Hw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwdBhLNB7nAqZ2b6oQ9nxUvxGty40ZPd02qcFSLPbedn8Ruoor2JktJvOHgCF13FuLa44wB8A== X-Received: by 2002:a63:5749:: with SMTP id h9mr7992087pgm.12.1573167563843; Thu, 07 Nov 2019 14:59:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from [100.112.92.218] ([104.133.9.106]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p7sm3732176pjp.4.2019.11.07.14.59.22 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Nov 2019 14:59:23 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 14:59:07 -0800 (PST) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@eggly.anvils To: Yang Shi cc: Hugh Dickins , Michal Hocko , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: shmem: use proper gfp flags for shmem_writepage() In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1572991351-86061-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com> <20191106151820.GB8138@dhcp22.suse.cz> <733100ea-97aa-db27-4b43-cf42317afaf8@linux.alibaba.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LSU 23 2013-08-11) 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 Thu, 7 Nov 2019, Yang Shi wrote: > On 11/6/19 10:59 AM, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > Yes, I don't think it fixes any actual problem: just a cleanup to > > make the two calls look the same when they don't need to be different > > (whereas the call from __read_swap_cache_async() rightly uses a > > lower priority gfp). > > I'm supposed it is because __read_swap_cache_async()is typically called from > page fault context which is less crucial than reclaim. Exactly. > > Shall I consider this as an ack but with commit log rephrased to reflect the > cleanup? Okay, Acked-by: Hugh Dickins