Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030233AbVKHCJw (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2005 21:09:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030219AbVKHCJv (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2005 21:09:51 -0500 Received: from fmr21.intel.com ([143.183.121.13]:1429 "EHLO scsfmr001.sc.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030233AbVKHCJs (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2005 21:09:48 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Cleanup of __alloc_pages From: Rohit Seth To: Andrew Morton Cc: torvalds@osdl.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20051107175358.62c484a3.akpm@osdl.org> References: <20051107174349.A8018@unix-os.sc.intel.com> <20051107175358.62c484a3.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Intel Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:16:30 -0800 Message-Id: <1131416195.20471.31.camel@akash.sc.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.2 (2.2.2-5) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Nov 2005 02:09:29.0274 (UTC) FILETIME=[7373E1A0:01C5E409] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1596 Lines: 42 On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 17:53 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > "Rohit, Seth" 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 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/