Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755610AbbB0WxW (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2015 17:53:22 -0500 Received: from resqmta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.36]:52115 "EHLO resqmta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755578AbbB0WxT (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2015 17:53:19 -0500 Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:53:16 -0600 (CST) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: cl@gentwo.org To: David Rientjes cc: Andrew Morton , Vlastimil Babka , Pekka Enberg , Joonsoo Kim , Johannes Weiner , Mel Gorman , Pravin Shelar , Jarno Rajahalme , Li Zefan , Greg Thelen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, dev@openvswitch.org Subject: Re: [patch v2 1/3] mm: remove GFP_THISNODE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 843 Lines: 26 On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, David Rientjes wrote: > +/* > + * Construct gfp mask to allocate from a specific node but do not invoke reclaim > + * or warn about failures. > + */ We should be triggering reclaim from slab allocations. Why would we not do this? Otherwise we will be going uselessly off node for slab allocations. > +static inline gfp_t gfp_exact_node(gfp_t flags) > +{ > + return (flags | __GFP_THISNODE | __GFP_NOWARN) & ~__GFP_WAIT; > +} > #endif Reclaim needs to be triggered. In particular zone reclaim was made to be triggered from slab allocations to create more room if needed. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/