From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] treewide: remove GFP_TEMPORARY allocation flag
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 10:04:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170825080442.GF25498@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170825072818.GA15494@amd>
On Fri 25-08-17 09:28:19, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Fri 2017-08-25 08:35:46, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 23-08-17 19:57:09, Pavel Machek wrote:
[...]
> > > Dunno. < 1msec probably is temporary, 1 hour probably is not. If it causes
> > > problems, can you just #define GFP_TEMPORARY GFP_KERNEL ? Treewide replace,
> > > and then starting again goes not look attractive to me.
> >
> > I do not think we want a highlevel GFP_TEMPORARY without any meaning.
> > This just supports spreading the flag usage without a clear semantic
> > and it will lead to even bigger mess. Once we can actually define what
> > the flag means we can also add its users based on that new semantic.
>
> It has real meaning.
Which is?
> You can define more exact meaning, and then adjust the usage. But
> there's no need to do treewide replacement...
I have checked most of them and except for the initially added onces the
large portion where added without a good reasons or even break an
intuitive meaning by taking locks.
Seriously, if we need a short term semantic it should be clearly defined
first.
Is there any specific case why you think this patch is in a wrong
direction? E.g. a measurable regression?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-25 8:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-28 9:19 [RFC PATCH] treewide: remove GFP_TEMPORARY allocation flag Michal Hocko
2017-07-28 9:52 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-28 10:27 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-28 10:59 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-28 13:15 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-08-23 17:57 ` Pavel Machek
2017-08-25 6:35 ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-25 7:28 ` Pavel Machek
2017-08-25 8:04 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2017-08-25 21:39 ` Pavel Machek
2017-08-26 4:11 ` NeilBrown
2017-08-28 12:36 ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-31 9:07 ` Pavel Machek
2017-08-31 9:29 ` Mel Gorman
2017-08-28 12:35 ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-31 9:10 ` Pavel Machek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170825080442.GF25498@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).