From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/30] mm: __GFP_MEMALLOC Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:35:35 +0200 Message-ID: <1216978535.7257.356.camel@twins> References: <20080724140042.408642539@chello.nl> <20080724141530.060638861@chello.nl> <20080725180305.86A9.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no, Daniel Lezcano , Pekka Enberg , Neil Brown To: KOSAKI Motohiro Return-path: Received: from viefep32-int.chello.at ([62.179.121.50]:39795 "EHLO viefep32-int.chello.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752474AbYGYJf2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jul 2008 05:35:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080725180305.86A9.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 18:29 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > Hi Peter, > > > __GFP_MEMALLOC will allow the allocation to disregard the watermarks, > > much like PF_MEMALLOC. > > > > It allows one to pass along the memalloc state in object related allocation > > flags as opposed to task related flags, such as sk->sk_allocation. > > Is this properly name? > page alloc is always "mem alloc". > > you wrote comment as "Use emergency reserves" and > this flag works to turn on ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS. > > then, __GFP_NO_WATERMARK or __GFP_EMERGENCY are better? We've been through this pick a better name thing several times :-/ Yes I agree, __GFP_MEMALLOC is a misnomer, however its consistent with PF_MEMALLOC and __GFP_NOMEMALLOC - of which people know the semantics. Creating a new name with similar semantics can only serve to confuse. So unless enough people think its worth renaming all of them, I think we're better off with this name.