On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 01:35:00PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > But I would prefer to have GPF_HIGHUSER movable by default and > > GFP_HIGHUSER_UNMOVABLE to opt out. > > > > Sounds like a separate patch. There are few questions before preparing patch: 1. Compatibility: some code which is not yet in tree can rely on non-movable behaviour of GFP_HIGHUSER. How would we handle this? Should we invent new name for the movable GFP_HIGHUSER? 2. Should GFP_USER be movable too? And the same compatibility question here. 3. Do we need a separate define for non-movable GPF_HIGHUSER or caller should use something like GPF_HIGHUSER & ~__GFP_MOVABLE? 4. Is there a gain, taking into account questions above? -- Kirill A. Shutemov -- 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>