> On Nov 13, 2015, at 23:36, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri 13-11-15 13:01:16, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> On 11/13/2015 12:47 PM, yalin wang wrote: >>> Add page_is_file_cache() for __GFP_FS check, >>> otherwise, a Pageswapcache() && PageDirty() page can always be write >>> back if the gfp flag is __GFP_FS, this is not the expected behavior. >> >> I'm not sure I understand your point correctly *), but you seem to imply >> that there would be an allocation that has __GFP_FS but doesn't have >> __GFP_IO? Are there such allocations and does it make sense? > > No it doesn't. There is a natural layering here and __GFP_FS allocations > should contain __GFP_IO. > > The patch as is makes only little sense to me. Are you seeing any issue > which this is trying to fix? mm.. i don’t see issue for this part , just feel confuse when i see code about this part , then i make a patch for this . i am not sure if __GFP_FS will make sure __GFP_IO flag must be always set. if it is , i think can add comment here to make people clear . :) Thanks -- 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