Re: [RFC 0/2] mapping_gfp_mask from the page fault path

[Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>]

On Wed 03-06-15 22:04:22, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
[...]
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Initialize the default to (mapping_gfp_mask | GFP_IOFS) because this
> > should be safe from the page fault path normally. Why do we care
> > about mapping_gfp_mask at all then? Because this doesn't hold only
> > reclaim protection flags but it also might contain zone and movability
> > restrictions (GFP_DMA32, __GFP_MOVABLE and others) so we have to respect
> > those.
> 
> [2/2] says that mapping_gfp_mask(mapping) might contain bits which are not
> in !GFP_KERNEL. If we do
> 
>   GFP_KERNEL & mapping_gfp_mask(mapping)
> 
> we will drop such bits and will cause problems.

No we won't.

> Thus, "GFP_KERNEL"
> in patch [1/1] should be replaced with "mapping_gfp_mask(mapping)" than
> "GFP_KERNEL & mapping_gfp_mask(mapping)" ?

Those gfp_masks are for LRU handling and that is GFP_KERNEL by
default. We only need to drop those which are not compatible with
mapping_gfp_mask. We do not care about __GFP_MOVABLE, GFP_DMA32 etc...
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

--
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>