From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e1.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lATMEjLU010677 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:14:45 -0500 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id lATMEj1m461350 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:14:45 -0500 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lATMEjUA032420 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:14:45 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix confusing __GFP_REPEAT related comments From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: <20071129214828.GD20882@us.ibm.com> References: <20071129214828.GD20882@us.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:14:40 -0800 Message-Id: <1196378080.18851.116.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nishanth Aravamudan Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, mel@skynet.ie, wli@holomorphy.com, apw@shadowen.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 13:48 -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > __GFP_NOFAIL means repeat forever > > order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER means __GFP_NOFAIL If this is true, why do we still pass in __GFP_REPEAT to the pgd_alloc() functions (at least in x86's pgalloc_64.h and pgtable_32.c). We don''t ever have pagetables exceeding PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER, do we? -- Dave -- 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: email@kvack.org