Re: [PATCH] mm, gfp: escalatedly define GFP_HIGHUSER and GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE

[Kirill A. Shutemov]

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 01:35:00PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> 
> > But I would prefer to have GPF_HIGHUSER movable by default and
> > GFP_HIGHUSER_UNMOVABLE to opt out.
> > 
> 
> Sounds like a separate patch.

There are few questions before preparing patch:

1. Compatibility: some code which is not yet in tree can rely on
non-movable behaviour of GFP_HIGHUSER. How would we handle this?
Should we invent new name for the movable GFP_HIGHUSER?

2. Should GFP_USER be movable too? And the same compatibility question
here.

3. Do we need a separate define for non-movable GPF_HIGHUSER or caller
should use something like GPF_HIGHUSER & ~__GFP_MOVABLE?

4. Is there a gain, taking into account questions above?

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/