Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1595302129-23895-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
 <20200721120533.GD15516@casper.infradead.org> <4c484ce0-cfed-0c50-7a20-d1474ce9afee@suse.cz>
 <20200721124312.GE15516@casper.infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200721124312.GE15516@casper.infradead.org>
From:   Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:42:44 +0900
Message-ID: <CAAmzW4NSQi016QH4rwZ4d5nCfS+9bpRZGd0wovaUSWnuySTvoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: fix memalloc_nocma_{save/restore} APIs
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kernel-team@lge.com,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>, stable@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

2020=EB=85=84 7=EC=9B=94 21=EC=9D=BC (=ED=99=94) =EC=98=A4=ED=9B=84 9:43, M=
atthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>=EB=8B=98=EC=9D=B4 =EC=9E=91=EC=84=B1:
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 02:38:56PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 7/21/20 2:05 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 12:28:49PM +0900, js1304@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> @@ -4619,8 +4631,10 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsign=
ed int order,
> > >>            wake_all_kswapds(order, gfp_mask, ac);
> > >>
> > >>    reserve_flags =3D __gfp_pfmemalloc_flags(gfp_mask);
> > >> -  if (reserve_flags)
> > >> +  if (reserve_flags) {
> > >>            alloc_flags =3D reserve_flags;
> > >> +          alloc_flags =3D current_alloc_flags(gfp_mask, alloc_flags=
);
> > >> +  }
> > >
> > > Is this right?  Shouldn't you be passing reserve_flags to
> > > current_alloc_flags() here?  Also, there's no need to add { } here.
> >
> > Note the "alloc_flags =3D reserve_flags;" line is not being deleted her=
e. But if
> > it was, your points would be true, and yeah it would be a bit more tidy=
.
>
> Oh ... I should wake up a little more.
>
> Yeah, I'd recommend just doing this:
>
> -               alloc_flags =3D reserve_flags;
> +               alloc_flags =3D current_alloc_flags(gfp_mask, reserve_fla=
gs);

Okay. I will change it. Just note that the reason that I added it
separately is that
I think that separation is more readable since we can easily notice
that alloc_flags
is changed to reserve_flags without inspecting currect_alloc_flags() functi=
on.

Thanks.