Re: [PATCH 1/3] tree wide: get rid of __GFP_REPEAT for order-0 allocations part I

2015-12-21 Thread Vlastimil Babka
On 12/01/2015 05:27 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Mon 30-11-15 18:02:33, Vlastimil Babka wrote: [...] So the issue I see with simply renaming __GFP_REPEAT to __GFP_BEST_AFFORD and making it possible to fail for low orders, is that it will conflate the new failure possibility with the existing "try

Re: [PATCH 1/3] tree wide: get rid of __GFP_REPEAT for order-0 allocations part I

2015-12-01 Thread Michal Hocko
On Mon 30-11-15 18:02:33, Vlastimil Babka wrote: [...] > I think we should consider all the related flags together before starting > renaming them. So IIUC the current state is: > > ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM - no reclaim/compaction, fails regardless of order; > good for allocations that prefer their f

Re: [PATCH 1/3] tree wide: get rid of __GFP_REPEAT for order-0 allocations part I

2015-11-30 Thread Vlastimil Babka
On 11/27/2015 10:38 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Wed 18-11-15 15:15:29, Vlastimil Babka wrote: I am not sure whether we found any conclusion here. Are there any strong arguments against patch 1? I think that should be relatively non-controversial. Agreed. What about patch 2? I think it should

Re: [PATCH 1/3] tree wide: get rid of __GFP_REPEAT for order-0 allocations part I

2015-11-28 Thread Michal Hocko
On Fri 27-11-15 10:38:07, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > I am not sure whether we found any conclusion here. Are there any strong > arguments against patch 1? I think that should be relatively > non-controversial. What about patch 2? I think it should be ok as well > as we are basically removing the f

Re: [PATCH 1/3] tree wide: get rid of __GFP_REPEAT for order-0 allocations part I

2015-11-27 Thread Michal Hocko
On Wed 18-11-15 15:15:29, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 11/10/2015 01:51 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 09-11-15 23:04:15, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > >> On 5.11.2015 17:15, mho...@kernel.org wrote: > >> > From: Michal Hocko > >> > > >> > __GFP_REPEAT has a rather weak semantic but since it has be

Re: [PATCH 1/3] tree wide: get rid of __GFP_REPEAT for order-0 allocations part I

2015-11-18 Thread Vlastimil Babka
On 11/10/2015 01:51 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 09-11-15 23:04:15, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> On 5.11.2015 17:15, mho...@kernel.org 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

Re: [PATCH 1/3] tree wide: get rid of __GFP_REPEAT for order-0 allocations part I

2015-11-10 Thread Michal Hocko
On Mon 09-11-15 23:04:15, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 5.11.2015 17:15, mho...@kernel.org 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. Yet we have > > the full kernel

Re: [PATCH 1/3] tree wide: get rid of __GFP_REPEAT for order-0 allocations part I

2015-11-09 Thread Vlastimil Babka
On 5.11.2015 17:15, mho...@kernel.org 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. Yet we have > the full kernel tree with its usage for apparently order-0 allocations. > Thi