On 04/27/2017 03:35 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 27-04-17 15:16:47, Igor Stoppa wrote:
>> On 26/04/17 18:29, Igor Stoppa wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/04/17 17:47, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
Also the current mm tree has ___GFP_NOLOCKDEP which is not addressed
here so I suspect you have
On 28/04/17 10:43, Igor Stoppa wrote:
[...]
> I'm writing an alternative different proposal, let's call it last attempt.
>
> Should be ready in a few minutes.
Here: http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=149336675129967&w=2
--
thanks, igor
On 28/04/17 10:40, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Do not add a new zone, really. What you seem to be looking for is an
> allocator on top of the page/memblock allocator which does write
> protection on top. I understand that you would like to avoid object
> management duplication but I am not really sure
On Thu 27-04-17 17:06:05, Igor Stoppa wrote:
>
>
> On 27/04/17 16:41, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 26-04-17 18:29:08, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> > [...]
> >> If you prefer to have this patch only as part of the larger patchset,
> >> I'm also fine with it.
> >
> > I agree that the situation is not id
On 27/04/17 16:41, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 26-04-17 18:29:08, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> [...]
>> If you prefer to have this patch only as part of the larger patchset,
>> I'm also fine with it.
>
> I agree that the situation is not ideal. If a larger set of changes
> would benefit from this chang
On Wed 26-04-17 18:29:08, Igor Stoppa wrote:
[...]
> If you prefer to have this patch only as part of the larger patchset,
> I'm also fine with it.
I agree that the situation is not ideal. If a larger set of changes
would benefit from this change then it would clearly add arguments...
> Also, if
On Thu 27-04-17 15:16:47, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> On 26/04/17 18:29, Igor Stoppa wrote:
>
> > On 26/04/17 17:47, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> Also the current mm tree has ___GFP_NOLOCKDEP which is not addressed
> >> here so I suspect you have based your change on the Linus tree.
>
> > I us
On 26/04/17 18:29, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> On 26/04/17 17:47, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
>> Also the current mm tree has ___GFP_NOLOCKDEP which is not addressed
>> here so I suspect you have based your change on the Linus tree.
> I used your tree from kernel.org
I found it, I was using master, ins
On 26/04/17 18:29, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> On 26/04/17 17:47, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
>> Also the current mm tree has ___GFP_NOLOCKDEP which is not addressed
>> here so I suspect you have based your change on the Linus tree.
> I used your tree from kernel.org
I found it, I was using master, ins
On 26/04/17 17:47, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 26-04-17 16:35:49, Igor Stoppa wrote:
>> The bitmasks used for ___GFP_xxx can be defined in terms of an enum,
>> which doesn't require manual updates to its values.
>
> GFP masks are rarely updated so why is this worth doing?
I have plans for that
On Wed 26-04-17 16:35:49, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> The bitmasks used for ___GFP_xxx can be defined in terms of an enum,
> which doesn't require manual updates to its values.
GFP masks are rarely updated so why is this worth doing?
> As bonus, __GFP_BITS_SHIFT is automatically kept consistent.
this a
The bitmasks used for ___GFP_xxx can be defined in terms of an enum,
which doesn't require manual updates to its values.
As bonus, __GFP_BITS_SHIFT is automatically kept consistent.
Signed-off-by: Igor Stoppa
---
include/linux/gfp.h | 82 +++--
1
12 matches
Mail list logo