On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Glauber Costa wrote: > On 09/28/2012 06:28 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Glauber Costa wrote: > > > >> There was a general sentiment in a recent discussion (See > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/18/258) that the __GFP flags should be > >> defined unconditionally. Currently, the only offender is GFP_NOTRACK, > >> which is conditional to KMEMCHECK. > >> > >> This simple patch makes it unconditional. > > > > __GFP_NOTRACK is only used in context where CONFIG_KMEMCHECK is defined? > > > > If that is not the case then you need to define GFP_NOTRACK and substitute > > it where necessary. > > > > The flag is passed around extensively, but I was imagining the whole > point of that is that having the flag itself is harmless, and will be > ignored by the page allocator ? Looking through it shows almost nothing that is affected. One thing though is that defining __GFP_NOTRACK to 0 eliminates an "or" operation in alloc_slab_page(). That is already on the slob path so I guess that is minimal Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>