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 16:53:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 10 May 2001 16:53:25 -0400 Received: from nat-pool-meridian.redhat.com ([199.183.24.200]:37048 "EHLO devserv.devel.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 10 May 2001 16:53:08 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:52:41 +0100 From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" To: Marcelo Tosatti Cc: "Stephen C. Tweedie" , Mark Hemment , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] allocation looping + kswapd CPU cycles Message-ID: <20010510215241.S16590@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20010510211913.R16590@redhat.com> 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 03:49:05PM -0300 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 03:49:05PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > Back to the main discussion --- I guess we could make __GFP_FAIL (with > __GFP_WAIT set :)) allocations actually fail if "try_to_free_pages()" does > not make any progress (ie returns zero). But maybe thats a bit too > extreme. That would seem to be a reasonable interpretation of __GFP_FAIL + __GFP_WAIT, yes. --Stephen