On Wed 06-09-17 10:59:09, Cristopher Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, js1304@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > --- a/mm/slub.c
> > +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > @@ -1578,8 +1578,12 @@ static struct page *allocate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags, int node)
> > * so we fall-back to the minimum order allocation.
> > */
> > alloc_gfp = (flags | __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NORETRY) & ~__GFP_NOFAIL;
> > - if ((alloc_gfp & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM) && oo_order(oo) > oo_order(s->min))
> > - alloc_gfp = (alloc_gfp | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC) & ~(__GFP_RECLAIM|__GFP_NOFAIL);
> > + if (oo_order(oo) > oo_order(s->min)) {
> > + if (alloc_gfp & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM) {
> > + alloc_gfp |= __GFP_NOMEMALLOC;
> > + alloc_gfp &= ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM;
> > + }
> > + }
> >
>
> Can we come up with another inline function in gfp.h for this as well?
What do you mean? The oo_order thing?
> Well and needing these functions to manipulate flags actually indicates
> that we may need a cleanup of the GFP flags at some point. There is a buch
> of flags that disable things and some that enable things.
Good luck with that
--
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>
