On Fri 13-05-16 10:23:31, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 05/12/2016 06:20 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 10-05-16 09:35:56, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > [...] > > > diff --git a/include/linux/gfp.h b/include/linux/gfp.h > > > index 570383a41853..0cb09714d960 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/gfp.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h > > > @@ -256,8 +256,7 @@ struct vm_area_struct; > > > #define GFP_HIGHUSER (GFP_USER | __GFP_HIGHMEM) > > > #define GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE (GFP_HIGHUSER | __GFP_MOVABLE) > > > #define GFP_TRANSHUGE ((GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE | __GFP_COMP | \ > > > - __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN) & \ > > > - ~__GFP_RECLAIM) > > > + __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | __GFP_NOWARN) & ~__GFP_RECLAIM) > > > > I am not sure this is the right thing to do. I think we should keep > > __GFP_NORETRY and clear it where we want a stronger semantic. This is > > just too suble that all callsites are doing the right thing. > > That would complicate alloc_hugepage_direct_gfpmask() a bit, but if you > think it's worth it, I can turn the default around, OK. Hmm, on the other hand it is true that GFP_TRANSHUGE is clearing both reclaim flags by default and then overwrites that. This is just too ugly. Can we make GFP_TRANSHUGE to only define flags we care about and then tweak those that should go away at the callsites which matter now that we do not rely on is_thp_gfp_mask? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>