From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Jianyu Zhan <nasa4836@gmail.com>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mgorman@suse.de, riel@redhat.com,
sasha.levin@oracle.com, n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com,
andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
vdavydov@parallels.com, fabf@skynet.be, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jianyu Zhan <jianyu.zhan@emc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, gfp: escalatedly define GFP_HIGHUSER and GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 16:32:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141125143219.GC11841@node.dhcp.inet.fi> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1411241334490.21237@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 01:35:00PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>
> > But I would prefer to have GPF_HIGHUSER movable by default and
> > GFP_HIGHUSER_UNMOVABLE to opt out.
> >
>
> Sounds like a separate patch.
There are few questions before preparing patch:
1. Compatibility: some code which is not yet in tree can rely on
non-movable behaviour of GFP_HIGHUSER. How would we handle this?
Should we invent new name for the movable GFP_HIGHUSER?
2. Should GFP_USER be movable too? And the same compatibility question
here.
3. Do we need a separate define for non-movable GPF_HIGHUSER or caller
should use something like GPF_HIGHUSER & ~__GFP_MOVABLE?
4. Is there a gain, taking into account questions above?
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Jianyu Zhan <nasa4836@gmail.com>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mgorman@suse.de, riel@redhat.com,
sasha.levin@oracle.com, n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com,
andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
vdavydov@parallels.com, fabf@skynet.be, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jianyu Zhan <jianyu.zhan@emc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, gfp: escalatedly define GFP_HIGHUSER and GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 16:32:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141125143219.GC11841@node.dhcp.inet.fi> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1411241334490.21237@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 01:35:00PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>
> > But I would prefer to have GPF_HIGHUSER movable by default and
> > GFP_HIGHUSER_UNMOVABLE to opt out.
> >
>
> Sounds like a separate patch.
There are few questions before preparing patch:
1. Compatibility: some code which is not yet in tree can rely on
non-movable behaviour of GFP_HIGHUSER. How would we handle this?
Should we invent new name for the movable GFP_HIGHUSER?
2. Should GFP_USER be movable too? And the same compatibility question
here.
3. Do we need a separate define for non-movable GPF_HIGHUSER or caller
should use something like GPF_HIGHUSER & ~__GFP_MOVABLE?
4. Is there a gain, taking into account questions above?
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-25 14:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-24 16:43 [PATCH] mm, gfp: escalatedly define GFP_HIGHUSER and GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE Jianyu Zhan
2014-11-24 16:43 ` Jianyu Zhan
2014-11-24 18:21 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-11-24 18:21 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-11-24 19:01 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2014-11-24 19:01 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2014-11-24 21:35 ` David Rientjes
2014-11-24 21:35 ` David Rientjes
2014-11-25 14:32 ` Kirill A. Shutemov [this message]
2014-11-25 14:32 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2014-11-24 21:34 ` David Rientjes
2014-11-24 21:34 ` David Rientjes
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20141125143219.GC11841@node.dhcp.inet.fi \
--to=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=fabf@skynet.be \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=jianyu.zhan@emc.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com \
--cc=nasa4836@gmail.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=sasha.levin@oracle.com \
--cc=vdavydov@parallels.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.