On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Minchan,
>>
>>> > +static inline struct page *page_cache_alloc_cold_noretry(struct address_space *x)
>>> > +{
>>> > + return __page_cache_alloc(mapping_gfp_mask(x)|__GFP_COLD|__GFP_NORETRY);
>>>
>>> It makes sense to me but it could make a noise about page allocation
>>> failure. I think it's not desirable.
>>> How about adding __GFP_NOWARAN?
>>
>> Yeah it makes sense. Here is the new version.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Fengguang
>> ---
>> Subject: readahead: readahead page allocations is OK to fail
>> Date: Tue Apr 26 14:29:40 CST 2011
>>
>> Pass __GFP_NORETRY|__GFP_NOWARN for readahead page allocations.
>>
>> readahead page allocations are completely optional. They are OK to
>> fail and in particular shall not trigger OOM on themselves.
>>
>> Reported-by: Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href