Re: [PATCH]: Cleanup of __alloc_pages

[Rohit Seth <rohit.seth@intel.com>]

On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 17:53 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> "Rohit, Seth" <rohit.seth@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > [PATCH]: Clean up of __alloc_pages. Couple of difference from original behavior:
> > 	1- remove the initial reclaim logic
> > 	2- GFP_HIGH pages are allowed to go little below watermark sooner.
> > 	3- Search for free pages unconditionally after direct reclaim.
> 
> Would it be possible to break these into three separate patches?  The
> cleanup part should be #1.
> 

Doing the above three things as part of this clean up patch makes the
code look extra clean... Is there any specific issue coming out of 2 & 3
above.

> > +		if (!skip_cpuset_chk && (!cpuset_zone_allowed(z, gfp_mask)))
> 
> It'd be nice to not have the `skip_cpuset_chk' flag there.  a) it gives
> Linus conniptions and b) it's a little extra overhead for !CONFIG_CPUSETS
> kernels.
> 

I think it will be easier to do this change as a follow on patch as that
will change the header file, function definition and such.  Can we defer
this to separate follow on patch.

> > -	zone_statistics(zonelist, z);
> > +	zone_statistics(zonelist, page_zone(page));
> 
> Evaluating page_zone() is not completely trivial.  Can we avoid the above?

Okay.  Last time Nick also mentioned this but agreed to keep it here.  I
will uplevel so that I don't go through the page_zone.

-rohit

--
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>