From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f71.google.com (mail-wm0-f71.google.com [74.125.82.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A84F6810B7 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2017 04:04:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f71.google.com with SMTP id 136so1734718wmm.11 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2017 01:04:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 138si805695wmf.127.2017.08.25.01.04.45 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 25 Aug 2017 01:04:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 10:04:42 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] treewide: remove GFP_TEMPORARY allocation flag Message-ID: <20170825080442.GF25498@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20170728091904.14627-1-mhocko@kernel.org> <20170823175709.GA22743@xo-6d-61-c0.localdomain> <20170825063545.GA25498@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170825072818.GA15494@amd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170825072818.GA15494@amd> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Pavel Machek Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Mel Gorman , Matthew Wilcox , Vlastimil Babka , Neil Brown , Theodore Ts'o , Andrew Morton , LKML On Fri 25-08-17 09:28:19, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Fri 2017-08-25 08:35:46, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 23-08-17 19:57:09, Pavel Machek wrote: [...] > > > Dunno. < 1msec probably is temporary, 1 hour probably is not. If it causes > > > problems, can you just #define GFP_TEMPORARY GFP_KERNEL ? Treewide replace, > > > and then starting again goes not look attractive to me. > > > > I do not think we want a highlevel GFP_TEMPORARY without any meaning. > > This just supports spreading the flag usage without a clear semantic > > and it will lead to even bigger mess. Once we can actually define what > > the flag means we can also add its users based on that new semantic. > > It has real meaning. Which is? > You can define more exact meaning, and then adjust the usage. But > there's no need to do treewide replacement... I have checked most of them and except for the initially added onces the large portion where added without a good reasons or even break an intuitive meaning by taking locks. Seriously, if we need a short term semantic it should be clearly defined first. Is there any specific case why you think this patch is in a wrong direction? E.g. a measurable regression? -- 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: email@kvack.org