On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 03:04:37AM +, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
> Hello!
Thanks Oleg for taking a look! Can you review the following please?
---8<---
mm: page_alloc: Remove GFP_IOFS
GFP_IOFS was intended to be shorthand for clearing two flags, not a set of
allocation flags. There is only one user
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 03:04:37AM +, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
> Hello!
Thanks Oleg for taking a look! Can you review the following please?
---8<---
mm: page_alloc: Remove GFP_IOFS
GFP_IOFS was intended to be shorthand for clearing two flags, not a set of
allocation flags. There is only one user
Hello!
On Sep 30, 2015, at 8:26 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> [diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/router.c
> b/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/router.c
>>
>> index 4fbae5ef44a9..dad9816dfee7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/router.c
>> +++
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 02:26:24PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> [+CC lustre maintainers]
>
> On 09/29/2015 03:35 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >>>Ok, I'll add a TODO to create a patch that removes GFP_IOFS entirely. It
> >>>can be tacked on to the end of the series.
> >>
> >>Okay, that makes sense
[+CC lustre maintainers]
On 09/29/2015 03:35 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
Ok, I'll add a TODO to create a patch that removes GFP_IOFS entirely. It
can be tacked on to the end of the series.
Okay, that makes sense to me. Thanks!
This?
Thanks for adding this, I think I also pointed this GFP_IOFS
[+CC lustre maintainers]
On 09/29/2015 03:35 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
Ok, I'll add a TODO to create a patch that removes GFP_IOFS entirely. It
can be tacked on to the end of the series.
Okay, that makes sense to me. Thanks!
This?
Thanks for adding this, I think I also pointed this GFP_IOFS
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 02:26:24PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> [+CC lustre maintainers]
>
> On 09/29/2015 03:35 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >>>Ok, I'll add a TODO to create a patch that removes GFP_IOFS entirely. It
> >>>can be tacked on to the end of the series.
> >>
> >>Okay, that makes sense
Hello!
On Sep 30, 2015, at 8:26 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> [diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/router.c
> b/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/router.c
>>
>> index 4fbae5ef44a9..dad9816dfee7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/router.c
>> +++
> > Ok, I'll add a TODO to create a patch that removes GFP_IOFS entirely. It
> > can be tacked on to the end of the series.
>
> Okay, that makes sense to me. Thanks!
>
This?
---8<---
mm: page_alloc: Remove GFP_IOFS
GFP_IOFS was intended to be shorthand for clearing two flags, not a
set of
> > Ok, I'll add a TODO to create a patch that removes GFP_IOFS entirely. It
> > can be tacked on to the end of the series.
>
> Okay, that makes sense to me. Thanks!
>
This?
---8<---
mm: page_alloc: Remove GFP_IOFS
GFP_IOFS was intended to be shorthand for clearing two flags, not a
set of
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 01:51:06PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 04:55:09PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:52:37AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > @@ -119,10 +134,10 @@ struct vm_area_struct;
> > > #define GFP_USER (__GFP_WAIT | __GFP_IO |
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 04:55:09PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:52:37AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > @@ -119,10 +134,10 @@ struct vm_area_struct;
> > #define GFP_USER (__GFP_WAIT | __GFP_IO | __GFP_FS | __GFP_HARDWALL)
> > #define GFP_HIGHUSER (GFP_USER |
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 01:51:06PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 04:55:09PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:52:37AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > @@ -119,10 +134,10 @@ struct vm_area_struct;
> > > #define GFP_USER (__GFP_WAIT | __GFP_IO |
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 04:55:09PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:52:37AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > @@ -119,10 +134,10 @@ struct vm_area_struct;
> > #define GFP_USER (__GFP_WAIT | __GFP_IO | __GFP_FS | __GFP_HARDWALL)
> > #define GFP_HIGHUSER (GFP_USER |
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:52:37AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> @@ -119,10 +134,10 @@ struct vm_area_struct;
> #define GFP_USER (__GFP_WAIT | __GFP_IO | __GFP_FS | __GFP_HARDWALL)
> #define GFP_HIGHUSER (GFP_USER | __GFP_HIGHMEM)
> #define GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE (GFP_HIGHUSER | __GFP_MOVABLE)
>
On Mon 21-09-15 11:52:37, Mel Gorman wrote:
> __GFP_WAIT has been used to identify atomic context in callers that hold
> spinlocks or are in interrupts. They are expected to be high priority and
> have access one of two watermarks lower than "min" which can be referred
> to as the "atomic
On Mon 21-09-15 11:52:37, Mel Gorman wrote:
> __GFP_WAIT has been used to identify atomic context in callers that hold
> spinlocks or are in interrupts. They are expected to be high priority and
> have access one of two watermarks lower than "min" which can be referred
> to as the "atomic
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:52:37AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> @@ -119,10 +134,10 @@ struct vm_area_struct;
> #define GFP_USER (__GFP_WAIT | __GFP_IO | __GFP_FS | __GFP_HARDWALL)
> #define GFP_HIGHUSER (GFP_USER | __GFP_HIGHMEM)
> #define GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE (GFP_HIGHUSER | __GFP_MOVABLE)
>
__GFP_WAIT has been used to identify atomic context in callers that hold
spinlocks or are in interrupts. They are expected to be high priority and
have access one of two watermarks lower than "min" which can be referred
to as the "atomic reserve". __GFP_HIGH users get access to the first lower
__GFP_WAIT has been used to identify atomic context in callers that hold
spinlocks or are in interrupts. They are expected to be high priority and
have access one of two watermarks lower than "min" which can be referred
to as the "atomic reserve". __GFP_HIGH users get access to the first lower
20 matches
Mail list logo
