On Fri 04-12-20 09:43:13, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 03-12-20 10:15:41, Pavel Tatashin wrote: [...] > > Also, current_gfp_context() is used elsewhere, and in some > > places removing __GFP_MOVABLE from gfp_mask means that we will need to > > also change other things. For example [1], in try_to_free_pages() we > > call current_gfp_context(gfp_mask) which can reduce the maximum zone > > idx, yet we simply set it to: reclaim_idx = gfp_zone(gfp_mask), not to > > the newly determined gfp_mask. > > Yes and the direct reclaim should honor the movable zone restriction. > Why should we reclaim ZONE_MOVABLE when the allocation cannot really > allocate from it? Or have I misunderstood your concern? Btw. if we have gfp mask properly filtered for the fast path then we can remove the additional call to current_gfp_context from the direct reclaim path. Something for a separate patch. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
