Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:54:24 -0800 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: [patch] GFP_ZONEMASK vs. MAX_NR_ZONES |
| |
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 05:53:08PM -0800, Matthew Dobson wrote: > node_zonelists looks like it should really be declared of size > MAX_NR_ZONES, not GFP_ZONEMASK. GFP_ZONEMASK is currently 15, making > node_zonelists an array of 16 elements. The extra zonelists are all > just duplicates of the *real* zonelists, namely the first 3 entries. > Again, if anyone can explain to me why I'm wrong in my thinking, I'd > love to know. There's certainly no way you could bitwise-and something > with any combination of the GFP_DMA and GFP_HIGHMEM flags to refer to > the 12th zonelist or some such! Or am I crazy?
No, you're not crazy, you're right:
#define __GFP_DMA 0x01 #define __GFP_HIGHMEM 0x02
/* Action modifiers - doesn't change the zoning */ #define __GFP_WAIT 0x10 /* Can wait and reschedule? */ #define __GFP_HIGH 0x20 /* Should access emergency pools? */ #define __GFP_IO 0x40 /* Can start physical IO? */ #define __GFP_FS 0x80 /* Can call down to low-level FS? */ #define __GFP_COLD 0x100 /* Cache-cold page required */ #define __GFP_NOWARN 0x200 /* Suppress page allocation failure warning */
bits 3-6 of gfp masks are totally unused.
-- wli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |