On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 3:54 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Good point. I am thinking to make a preparation patch at the beginning of the series where we move current_gfp_context() to the fast path, and also address all other cases where this call is not going to be needed anymore, or where the gfp_mask will needed to be set according to what current_gfp_context() returned. Thanks, Pasha
