From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753179AbcERMq5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 May 2016 08:46:57 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:60848 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752561AbcERMq4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 May 2016 08:46:56 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC 11/13] mm, compaction: add the ultimate direct compaction priority To: Michal Hocko References: <1462865763-22084-1-git-send-email-vbabka@suse.cz> <1462865763-22084-12-git-send-email-vbabka@suse.cz> <20160513133851.GP20141@dhcp22.suse.cz> <573973F7.7070202@suse.cz> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Joonsoo Kim , Rik van Riel , David Rientjes , Mel Gorman , Johannes Weiner , Tetsuo Handa , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds From: Vlastimil Babka Message-ID: <573C6418.3010408@suse.cz> Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 14:46:16 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <573973F7.7070202@suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/16/2016 09:17 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> >Wouldn't it be better to pull the prio check into compaction_deferred >> >directly? There are more callers and I am not really sure all of them >> >would behave consistently. > I'll check, thanks. Hm so the other callers of compaction_deferred() are in the context where there's no direct compaction priority set. They would have to pass something like DEF_COMPACT_PRIORITY. That starts getting subtle so I'd rather not go that way.