Hi Pekka, On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 11:52:40AM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote: > Hi Nick, > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Filesystems should be careful about exactly what semantics they want and what > > they get when fiddling with gfp_t masks to allocate pagecache. One should be > > as liberal as possible with the type of memory that can be used, and same > > for the the context specific flags. > > > > Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx> > > --- > > Index: linux-2.6/mm/filemap.c > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/filemap.c > > +++ linux-2.6/mm/filemap.c > > @@ -741,7 +741,8 @@ repeat: > > page = __page_cache_alloc(gfp_mask); > > if (!page) > > return NULL; > > - err = add_to_page_cache_lru(page, mapping, index, gfp_mask); > > + err = add_to_page_cache_lru(page, mapping, index, > > + (gfp_mask & (__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO|__GFP_WAIT|__GFP_HIGH))); > > Can we use GFP_RECLAIM_MASK here? I mean, surely we need to pass > __GFP_NOFAIL, for example, down to radix_tree_preload() et al? Ah, yes I thought a #define would be handy for this, but obviously didn't look hard enough. GFP_RECLAIM_MASK looks good (but God help any filesystem passing __GFP_NOFAIL into here ;)). Thanks, Nick -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
