Re: [PATCH 1/4] s390: get rid of superfluous __GFP_REPEAT

[Heiko Carstens]

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 03:11:10PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 08-03-17 09:23:40, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:48:40PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > From: Michal Hocko 
> > > 
> > > __GFP_REPEAT has a rather weak semantic but since it has been introduced
> > > around 2.6.12 it has been ignored for low order allocations.
> > > 
> > > page_table_alloc then uses the flag for a single page allocation. This
> > > means that this flag has never been actually useful here because it has
> > > always been used only for PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY requests.
> > > 
> > > An earlier attempt to remove the flag 10d58bf297e2 ("s390: get rid of
> > > superfluous __GFP_REPEAT") has missed this one but the situation is very
> > > same here.
> > > 
> > > Cc: Heiko Carstens 
> > > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko 
> > > ---
> > >  arch/s390/mm/pgalloc.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > FWIW:
> > Acked-by: Heiko Carstens 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> > If you want, this can be routed via the s390 tree, whatever you prefer.
> 
> Yes, that would be great. I suspect the rest will take longer to get
> merged or land to a conclusion.

Ok, applied. Thanks! :)

Re: [PATCH 1/4] s390: get rid of superfluous __GFP_REPEAT

[Heiko Carstens]

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 03:11:10PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 08-03-17 09:23:40, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:48:40PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > From: Michal Hocko 
> > > 
> > > __GFP_REPEAT has a rather weak semantic but since it has been introduced
> > > around 2.6.12 it has been ignored for low order allocations.
> > > 
> > > page_table_alloc then uses the flag for a single page allocation. This
> > > means that this flag has never been actually useful here because it has
> > > always been used only for PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY requests.
> > > 
> > > An earlier attempt to remove the flag 10d58bf297e2 ("s390: get rid of
> > > superfluous __GFP_REPEAT") has missed this one but the situation is very
> > > same here.
> > > 
> > > Cc: Heiko Carstens 
> > > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko 
> > > ---
> > >  arch/s390/mm/pgalloc.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > FWIW:
> > Acked-by: Heiko Carstens 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> > If you want, this can be routed via the s390 tree, whatever you prefer.
> 
> Yes, that would be great. I suspect the rest will take longer to get
> merged or land to a conclusion.

Ok, applied. Thanks! :)

Re: [PATCH 1/4] s390: get rid of superfluous __GFP_REPEAT

[Michal Hocko]

On Wed 08-03-17 09:23:40, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:48:40PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko 
> > 
> > __GFP_REPEAT has a rather weak semantic but since it has been introduced
> > around 2.6.12 it has been ignored for low order allocations.
> > 
> > page_table_alloc then uses the flag for a single page allocation. This
> > means that this flag has never been actually useful here because it has
> > always been used only for PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY requests.
> > 
> > An earlier attempt to remove the flag 10d58bf297e2 ("s390: get rid of
> > superfluous __GFP_REPEAT") has missed this one but the situation is very
> > same here.
> > 
> > Cc: Heiko Carstens 
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko 
> > ---
> >  arch/s390/mm/pgalloc.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> FWIW:
> Acked-by: Heiko Carstens 

Thanks

> If you want, this can be routed via the s390 tree, whatever you prefer.

Yes, that would be great. I suspect the rest will take longer to get
merged or land to a conclusion.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

Re: [PATCH 1/4] s390: get rid of superfluous __GFP_REPEAT

[Michal Hocko]

On Wed 08-03-17 09:23:40, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:48:40PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko 
> > 
> > __GFP_REPEAT has a rather weak semantic but since it has been introduced
> > around 2.6.12 it has been ignored for low order allocations.
> > 
> > page_table_alloc then uses the flag for a single page allocation. This
> > means that this flag has never been actually useful here because it has
> > always been used only for PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY requests.
> > 
> > An earlier attempt to remove the flag 10d58bf297e2 ("s390: get rid of
> > superfluous __GFP_REPEAT") has missed this one but the situation is very
> > same here.
> > 
> > Cc: Heiko Carstens 
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko 
> > ---
> >  arch/s390/mm/pgalloc.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> FWIW:
> Acked-by: Heiko Carstens 

Thanks

> If you want, this can be routed via the s390 tree, whatever you prefer.

Yes, that would be great. I suspect the rest will take longer to get
merged or land to a conclusion.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

Re: [PATCH 1/4] s390: get rid of superfluous __GFP_REPEAT

[Heiko Carstens]

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:48:40PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko 
> 
> __GFP_REPEAT has a rather weak semantic but since it has been introduced
> around 2.6.12 it has been ignored for low order allocations.
> 
> page_table_alloc then uses the flag for a single page allocation. This
> means that this flag has never been actually useful here because it has
> always been used only for PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY requests.
> 
> An earlier attempt to remove the flag 10d58bf297e2 ("s390: get rid of
> superfluous __GFP_REPEAT") has missed this one but the situation is very
> same here.
> 
> Cc: Heiko Carstens 
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko 
> ---
>  arch/s390/mm/pgalloc.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

FWIW:
Acked-by: Heiko Carstens 

If you want, this can be routed via the s390 tree, whatever you prefer.

Re: [PATCH 1/4] s390: get rid of superfluous __GFP_REPEAT

[Heiko Carstens]

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:48:40PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko 
> 
> __GFP_REPEAT has a rather weak semantic but since it has been introduced
> around 2.6.12 it has been ignored for low order allocations.
> 
> page_table_alloc then uses the flag for a single page allocation. This
> means that this flag has never been actually useful here because it has
> always been used only for PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY requests.
> 
> An earlier attempt to remove the flag 10d58bf297e2 ("s390: get rid of
> superfluous __GFP_REPEAT") has missed this one but the situation is very
> same here.
> 
> Cc: Heiko Carstens 
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko 
> ---
>  arch/s390/mm/pgalloc.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

FWIW:
Acked-by: Heiko Carstens 

If you want, this can be routed via the s390 tree, whatever you prefer.

[PATCH 1/4] s390: get rid of superfluous __GFP_REPEAT

[Michal Hocko]

From: Michal Hocko 

__GFP_REPEAT has a rather weak semantic but since it has been introduced
around 2.6.12 it has been ignored for low order allocations.

page_table_alloc then uses the flag for a single page allocation. This
means that this flag has never been actually useful here because it has
always been used only for PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY requests.

An earlier attempt to remove the flag 10d58bf297e2 ("s390: get rid of
superfluous __GFP_REPEAT") has missed this one but the situation is very
same here.

Cc: Heiko Carstens 
Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko 
---
 arch/s390/mm/pgalloc.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/pgalloc.c b/arch/s390/mm/pgalloc.c
index 995f78532cc2..2776bad61094 100644
--- a/arch/s390/mm/pgalloc.c
+++ b/arch/s390/mm/pgalloc.c
@@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ struct page *page_table_alloc_pgste(struct mm_struct *mm)
struct page *page;
unsigned long *table;
 
-   page = alloc_page(GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_REPEAT);
+   page = alloc_page(GFP_KERNEL);
if (page) {
table = (unsigned long *) page_to_phys(page);
clear_table(table, _PAGE_INVALID, PAGE_SIZE/2);
-- 
2.11.0

[PATCH 1/4] s390: get rid of superfluous __GFP_REPEAT

[Michal Hocko]

From: Michal Hocko 

__GFP_REPEAT has a rather weak semantic but since it has been introduced
around 2.6.12 it has been ignored for low order allocations.

page_table_alloc then uses the flag for a single page allocation. This
means that this flag has never been actually useful here because it has
always been used only for PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY requests.

An earlier attempt to remove the flag 10d58bf297e2 ("s390: get rid of
superfluous __GFP_REPEAT") has missed this one but the situation is very
same here.

Cc: Heiko Carstens 
Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko 
---
 arch/s390/mm/pgalloc.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/pgalloc.c b/arch/s390/mm/pgalloc.c
index 995f78532cc2..2776bad61094 100644
--- a/arch/s390/mm/pgalloc.c
+++ b/arch/s390/mm/pgalloc.c
@@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ struct page *page_table_alloc_pgste(struct mm_struct *mm)
struct page *page;
unsigned long *table;
 
-   page = alloc_page(GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_REPEAT);
+   page = alloc_page(GFP_KERNEL);
if (page) {
table = (unsigned long *) page_to_phys(page);
clear_table(table, _PAGE_INVALID, PAGE_SIZE/2);
-- 
2.11.0