@@ -1687,7 +1687,7 @@ enum compact_result try_to_compact_pages(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,*contended=COMPACT_CONTENDED_NONE;/* Check if the GFP flags allow compaction */-if(!order||!may_enter_fs||!may_perform_io)+if(!may_enter_fs||!may_perform_io)returnCOMPACT_SKIPPED;trace_mm_compaction_try_to_compact_pages(order,gfp_mask,mode);
--
1.9.1
--
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>
The caller __alloc_pages_direct_compact() already check (order == 0).
So no need to check again.
Yeah, the caller (__alloc_pages_direct_compact) checks if the order of
allocation is 0. But we can remove it there and keep it in here as this
is the actual entry point for direct page compaction.
--
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>
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Date: 2016-06-24 20:58:41
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 14:16:20 +0530 Anshuman Khandual [off-list ref] wrote:
On 06/15/2016 12:22 PM, Ganesh Mahendran wrote:
quoted
The caller __alloc_pages_direct_compact() already check (order == 0).
So no need to check again.
Yeah, the caller (__alloc_pages_direct_compact) checks if the order of
allocation is 0. But we can remove it there and keep it in here as this
is the actual entry point for direct page compaction.
I think the check in __alloc_pages_direct_compact() is OK - it's a bit
silly to do a (small) bunch of additional work in
__alloc_pages_direct_compact() when orer==0.
--
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>