On Sat 29-07-23 20:05:43, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2023/07/29 14:31, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > On 2023/07/28 0:10, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > >> On 2023-06-28 21:14:16 [+0900], Tetsuo Handa wrote: > >>>> Anyway, please do not do this change only because of printk(). > >>>> IMHO, the current ordering is more logical and the printk() problem > >>>> should be solved another way. > >>> > >>> Then, since [PATCH 1/2] cannot be applied, [PATCH 2/2] is automatically > >>> rejected. > >> > >> My understanding is that this patch gets applied and your objection will > >> be noted. > > > > My preference is that zonelist_update_seq is not checked by !__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM > > allocations, which is a low-hanging fruit towards GFP_LOCKLESS mentioned at > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/ZG3+l4qcCWTPtSMD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx and > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/ZJWWpGZMJIADQvRS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx . > > > > Maybe we can defer checking zonelist_update_seq till retry check like below, > > for this is really an infrequent event. > > > > An updated version with comments added. Seriously, don't you see how hairy all this is? And for what? Nitpicking something that doesn't seem to be a real problem in the first place? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
