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

[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 flag which has never had any effect.
> 
> I would like to proceed with this further by going through remaining users.
> Most of them depend on a variable size and I am not familiar with the
> code so I will talk to maintainer to find out reasoning behind using the
> flag. Once we have reasonable number of them I would like to go on and
> rename the flag to __GFP_BEST_AFFORD and make it independent on the

ble, __GFP_BEST_EFFORT I meant of course...

> order. It would still trigger OOM killer where applicable but wouldn't
> retry endlessly.
> 
> Does this sound like a reasonable plan?

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/