From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1758580AbXGXT0r@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1758580AbXGXT0r (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:26:47 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754919AbXGXT0k
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:26:40 -0400
Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:60777 "EHLO
	smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754143AbXGXT0k (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:26:40 -0400
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:25:42 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>, Mel Gorman <mel@skynet.ie>,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
       linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Daniel Phillips <phillips@google.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add __GFP_ZERO to GFP_LEVEL_MASK
Message-Id: <20070724122542.d4ac734a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20070724120751.401bcbcb@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
References: <1185185020.8197.11.camel@twins>
	<20070723112143.GB19437@skynet.ie>
	<1185190711.8197.15.camel@twins>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0707231615310.427@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
	<1185256869.8197.27.camel@twins>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0707240007100.3128@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
	<1185261894.8197.33.camel@twins>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0707240030110.3295@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
	<20070724120751.401bcbcb@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.7 (GTK+ 2.8.6; i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:07:51 -0700
Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> wrote:

> Then there are some other flags. I am wondering why they are in
> GFP_LEVEL_MASK?
> 
> __GFP_COLD	Does not make sense for slab allocators since we have
> 		to touch the page immediately.
> 
> __GFP_COMP	No effect. Added by the page allocator on their own
> 		if a higher order allocs are used for a slab.
> 
> __GFP_MOVABLE	The movability of a slab is determined by the
> 		options specified at kmem_cache_create time. If this is
> 		specified at kmalloc time then we will have some random
> 		slabs movable and others not. 

Yes, they seem inappropriate.  Especially the first two.