On Fri, 2020-11-27 at 08:52 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 26-11-20 13:04:14, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > > I would be more than happy to implement things differently, > > but I am not sure what alternative you are suggesting. > > Simply do not alter gfp flags? Or warn in some cases of a serious > mismatch. > E.g. GFP_ZONEMASK mismatch because there are already GFP_KERNEL users > of > shmem. Not altering the gfp flags is not really an option, because that would leads to attempting to allocate THPs with GFP_HIGHUSER, which is what is used to allocate regular tmpfs pages. If the THP configuration in sysfs says we should not be doing compaction/reclaim from THP allocations, we should obey that configuration setting, and use a gfp_flags that results in no compaction/reclaim being done. -- All Rights Reversed.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
