Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 10 May 2001 13:43:46 -0300 (BRT) | | From | Marcelo Tosatti <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] allocation looping + kswapd CPU cycles |
| |
On Thu, 10 May 2001, Mark Hemment wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 May 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > On Wed, 9 May 2001, Mark Hemment wrote: > > > Could introduce another allocation flag (__GFP_FAIL?) which is or'ed > > > with a __GFP_WAIT to limit the looping? > > > > __GFP_FAIL is in the -ac tree already and it is being used by the bounce > > buffer allocation code. > > Thanks for the pointer. > > For non-zero order allocations, the test against __GFP_FAIL is a little > too soon; it would be better after we've tried to reclaim pages from the > inactive-clean list. Any nasty side effects to this?
No. __GFP_FAIL can to try to reclaim pages from inactive clean.
We just want to avoid __GFP_FAIL allocations from going to try_to_free_pages().
> Plus, the code still prevents PF_MEMALLOC processes from using the > inactive-clean list for non-zero order allocations. As the trend seems to > be to make zero and non-zero allocations 'equivalent', shouldn't this > restriction to lifted?
I don't see any problem about making non-zero allocations be able to directly reclaim pages.
- 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/
|  |