On (24/07/07 12:25), Andrew Morton didst pronounce: > On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:07:51 -0700 > Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Then there are some other flags. I am wondering why they are in > > GFP_LEVEL_MASK? > > > > __GFP_COLD Does not make sense for slab allocators since we have > > to touch the page immediately. > > > > __GFP_COMP No effect. Added by the page allocator on their own > > if a higher order allocs are used for a slab. > > > > __GFP_MOVABLE The movability of a slab is determined by the > > options specified at kmem_cache_create time. If this is > > specified at kmalloc time then we will have some random > > slabs movable and others not. > > Yes, they seem inappropriate. Especially the first two.
And the third one is also inappropriate by the definition of GFP_LEVEL_MASK Christoph is using. If GFP_LEVEL_MASK is to be used to filter out flags that are unsuitable for higher allocators such as slab and vmalloc, then they shouldn't be using __GFP_MOVABLE because they are unlikely to do the correct thing with the pages. When the flags were added, I was treating GFP_LEVEL_MASK as a set of allowed flags to the allocator. -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
