On Tue, 28 Sep 2010, Andrew Morton wrote: > What I care about is that very smart, experienced and hard-working > Linux developers decided, a long time ago, that page-table allocations > are special, and need special treatment. This is information! > Then they implemented it incorrectly since __GFP_REPEAT has never given any order-0 allocation special treatment. > What I also care about is lazy MM developers who just rip stuff out > without understanding it and without even bothering to make an > *attempt* to understand it. > I understand that __GFP_REPEAT does absolutely nothing in all the places that I removed it in this patch, but if you want to use a gfp flag as documentation instead of adding a comment to the PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER retry logic, then that's your call, but I would certainly suggest cleaning up the erroneous documentation in the tree that specifies its semantics. > > So, given the fact that the PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER logic has existed > > since the same time, the semantics of __GFP_REPEAT have changed and are > > often misrepresented, and we don't even invoke the __GFP_REPEAT logic for > > any of the allocations in my patch since they are oom killable, > > Probably this is because lazy ignorant MM developers broke earlier > intentions without even knowing that they were doing so. > The intention was that they loop forever, but since that's implicit for these order-0 allocations, I guess you allowed its semantics to change in a41f24ea without the same objections? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>