On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:

On 09/28/2012 06:28 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:

quoted

There was a general sentiment in a recent discussion (See
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/18/258) that the __GFP flags should be
defined unconditionally. Currently, the only offender is GFP_NOTRACK,
which is conditional to KMEMCHECK.

This simple patch makes it unconditional.

__GFP_NOTRACK is only used in context where CONFIG_KMEMCHECK is defined?

If that is not the case then you need to define GFP_NOTRACK and substitute
it where necessary.

The flag is passed around extensively, but I was imagining the whole
point of that is that having the flag itself is harmless, and will be
ignored by the page allocator ?

Looking through it shows almost nothing that is affected.

One thing though is that defining __GFP_NOTRACK to 0 eliminates an "or"
operation in alloc_slab_page().

That is already on the slob path so I guess that is minimal

Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <redacted>

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>