From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 10 May 2001 15:53:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 10 May 2001 15:52:50 -0400 Received: from nat-pool-meridian.redhat.com ([199.183.24.200]:7553 "EHLO devserv.devel.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 10 May 2001 15:52:39 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 20:52:04 +0100 From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" To: Marcelo Tosatti Cc: Mark Hemment , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] allocation looping + kswapd CPU cycles Message-ID: <20010510205204.O16590@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from marcelo@conectiva.com.br on Thu, May 10, 2001 at 01:43:46PM -0300 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 01:43:46PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > No. __GFP_FAIL can to try to reclaim pages from inactive clean. > > We just want to avoid __GFP_FAIL allocations from going to > try_to_free_pages(). Why? __GFP_FAIL is only useful as an indication that the caller has some magic mechanism for coping with failure. There's no other information passed, so a brief call to try_to_free_pages is quite appropriate. --Stephen