[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [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

    > 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
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [W:0.020 / U:23.836 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site