On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hir...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > I think the idea is reasonable. I have a request.
Thanks for your comment. > > In current implemententation of vmscan.c, it seems sc.may_writepage, > sc.may_swap > are handled independent from gfp_mask. > > So, could you drop changes from this patch and handle these flags in another > patch > if these flags should be unset if ~GFP_IOFS ? OK, I agree. In theory, mm should make sure no I/O is involved if memory allocation users passes ~GFP_IOFS. > > I think try_to_free_page() path's sc.may_xxxx should be handled in the same > way. Yes, alloc_page_buffers() and dma_alloc_from_contiguous may drop into the path, so gfp flag should be changed in try_to_free_page() too. Thanks, -- Ming Lei -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
