From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757798AbcILLQ3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Sep 2016 07:16:29 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f66.google.com ([74.125.82.66]:33007 "EHLO mail-wm0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753728AbcILLQ0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Sep 2016 07:16:26 -0400 From: Michal Hocko To: Andrew Morton Cc: , LKML , "Huang, Ying" , tim.c.chen@intel.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, andi.kleen@intel.com, aaron.lu@intel.com, Hugh Dickins , Shaohua Li , Minchan Kim , Rik van Riel , Tejun Heo , Wu Fengguang Subject: [PATCH 0/2] do not squash mapping flags and gfp_mask together (was: Re: [PATCH -v2] mm: Don't use radix tree writeback tags for pages in) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 13:16:06 +0200 Message-Id: <20160912111608.2588-1-mhocko@kernel.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.9.3 In-Reply-To: <20160901091347.GC12147@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20160901091347.GC12147@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu 01-09-16 11:13:47, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 31-08-16 14:30:31, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 10:14:59 +0100 Mel Gorman wrote: [...] > > > I didn't see anything wrong with the patch but it's worth highlighting > > > that this hunk means we are now out of GFP bits. > > > > Well ugh. What are we to do about that? > > Can we simply give these AS_ flags their own word in mapping rather than > squash them together with gfp flags and impose the restriction on the > number of gfp flags. There was some demand for new gfp flags already and > mapping flags were in the way. OK, it seems this got unnoticed. What do you think about the following two patches? I have only compile tested them and git grep suggests nobody else should be relying on storing gfp_mask into flags directly. So either I my grep-foo fools me or this should be safe. The two patches will come as a reply to this email. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f70.google.com (mail-wm0-f70.google.com [74.125.82.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C46A6B0038 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 07:16:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f70.google.com with SMTP id l68so3630689wml.3 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 04:16:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm0-f66.google.com (mail-wm0-f66.google.com. [74.125.82.66]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hn1si14822892wjb.164.2016.09.12.04.16.25 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 12 Sep 2016 04:16:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f66.google.com with SMTP id z194so762870wmd.3 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 04:16:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Michal Hocko Subject: [PATCH 0/2] do not squash mapping flags and gfp_mask together (was: Re: [PATCH -v2] mm: Don't use radix tree writeback tags for pages in) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 13:16:06 +0200 Message-Id: <20160912111608.2588-1-mhocko@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20160901091347.GC12147@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20160901091347.GC12147@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML , "Huang, Ying" , tim.c.chen@intel.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, andi.kleen@intel.com, aaron.lu@intel.com, Hugh Dickins , Shaohua Li , Minchan Kim , Rik van Riel , Tejun Heo , Wu Fengguang On Thu 01-09-16 11:13:47, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 31-08-16 14:30:31, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 10:14:59 +0100 Mel Gorman wrote: [...] > > > I didn't see anything wrong with the patch but it's worth highlighting > > > that this hunk means we are now out of GFP bits. > > > > Well ugh. What are we to do about that? > > Can we simply give these AS_ flags their own word in mapping rather than > squash them together with gfp flags and impose the restriction on the > number of gfp flags. There was some demand for new gfp flags already and > mapping flags were in the way. OK, it seems this got unnoticed. What do you think about the following two patches? I have only compile tested them and git grep suggests nobody else should be relying on storing gfp_mask into flags directly. So either I my grep-foo fools me or this should be safe. The two patches will come as a reply to this email. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org