On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 04:55:09PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:52:37AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > @@ -119,10 +134,10 @@ struct vm_area_struct; > > #define GFP_USER (__GFP_WAIT | __GFP_IO | __GFP_FS | __GFP_HARDWALL) > > #define GFP_HIGHUSER (GFP_USER | __GFP_HIGHMEM) > > #define GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE (GFP_HIGHUSER | __GFP_MOVABLE) > > -#define GFP_IOFS (__GFP_IO | __GFP_FS) > > -#define GFP_TRANSHUGE (GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE | __GFP_COMP | \ > > - __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN | \ > > - __GFP_NO_KSWAPD) > > +#define GFP_IOFS (__GFP_IO | __GFP_FS | __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM) > > These are some really odd semantics to be given a name like that. > > GFP_IOFS was introduced as a short-hand for testing/setting/clearing > these two bits at the same time, not to be used for allocations. In > fact, the only user for allocations is lustre, and it's not at all > obious why those sites shouldn't include __GFP_WAIT as well. > > Removing this definition altogether would probably be best. Ok, I'll add a TODO to create a patch that removes GFP_IOFS entirely. It can be tacked on to the end of the series. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- 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>