On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 06:39:06PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:49:58AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 08:00:18PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > <SNIP> > > > > > > BTW, it comes to mind in patch 2, SLUB should clear __GFP_REPEAT too > > > (not only __GFP_NOFAIL). Clearing __GFP_WAIT may be worth it or not > > > with COMPACTION=y, definitely good idea to clear __GFP_WAIT unless > > > lumpy is restricted to __GFP_REPEAT|__GFP_NOFAIL. > > > > This is in V2 (unreleased, testing in progress and was running > > overnight). I noticed that clearing __GFP_REPEAT is required for > > reclaim/compaction if direct reclaimers from SLUB are to return false in > > should_continue_reclaim() and bail out from high-order allocation > > properly. As it is, there is a possibility for slub high-order direct > > reclaimers to loop in reclaim/compaction for a long time. This is > > only important when CONFIG_COMPACTION=y. > > Agreed. However I don't expect anyone to allocate from slub(/slab) > with __GFP_REPEAT so it's probably only theoretical but more correct > indeed ;). Networking layer does specify __GFP_REPEAT. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- 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=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>