On 08/26/2015 08:10 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
I think the most robust check would be to rely on what was already prepared
by gfp_to_alloc_flags(), instead of repeating it here. So add alloc_flags
parameter to warn_alloc_failed(), and drop the filter when
- ALLOC_CPUSET is not set, as that disables the cpuset checks
- ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS is set, as that allows calling
__alloc_pages_high_priority() attempt which ignores cpusets
warn_alloc_failed is used outside of page_alloc.c in a context that does
not have alloc_flags. It could be extended to take an extra parameter
that is ALLOC_CPUSET for the other callers or else split it into
__warn_alloc_failed (takes alloc_flags parameter) and warn_alloc_failed
(calls __warn_alloc_failed with ALLOC_CPUSET) but is it really worth it?
Probably not. Testing lack of __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM is good enough until
somebody cares more.
--
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>