Re: [patch] slob: fix gfp flags for order-0 page allocations

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Matt Mackall wrote:

> > kmalloc_node() may allocate higher order slob pages, but the __GFP_COMP
> > bit is only passed to the page allocator and not represented in the
> > tracepoint event.  The bit should be passed to trace_kmalloc_node() as
> > well.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> >  		unsigned int order = get_order(size);
> >  
> > -		ret = slob_new_pages(gfp | __GFP_COMP, get_order(size), node);
> > +		if (likely(order))
> > +			gfp |= __GFP_COMP;
> 
> Why is it likely? I would hope that the majority of page allocations are
> in fact order 0.
> 

This code only executes when size >= PAGE_SIZE + align, so I would assume 
that the vast majority of times this is actually higher order allocs 
(which is probably why __GFP_COMP was implicitly added to the gfpmask in 
the first place).  Is there evidence to show otherwise?

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]