On Thu, 8 May 2014 15:19:37 +0900 Minchan Kim [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

I also think that VM_DEBUG overhead isn't problem because of same
reason from Vlastimil.

Guys, please read this.

https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/17/591

If you guys really want it, we could separate it with
CONFIG_DEBUG_CMA or CONFIG_DEBUG_RESERVE like stuff.
Otherwise, just remain in mmotm.

Wise words, those.

Yes, these checks are in a pretty hot path.  I'm inclined to make the
patch -mm (and -next) only.

Unless there's a really good reason, such as "nobody who uses CMA is
likely to be testing -next", which sounds likely :(

--
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>