On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Ganesh Mahendran <opensource.ganesh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In the callee try_to_compact_pages(), the (order == 0) is checked, > so remove check in __alloc_pages_direct_compact. > > Signed-off-by: Ganesh Mahendran <opensource.ganesh@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > v2: > remove the check in __alloc_pages_direct_compact - Anshuman Khandual > --- > mm/page_alloc.c | 3 --- > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c > index b9ea618..2f5a82a 100644 > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c > @@ -3173,9 +3173,6 @@ __alloc_pages_direct_compact(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order, > struct page *page; > int contended_compaction; > > - if (!order) > - return NULL; > - > current->flags |= PF_MEMALLOC; > *compact_result = try_to_compact_pages(gfp_mask, order, alloc_flags, ac, > mode, &contended_compaction); What is the benefit of this. Is an if check more expensive than calling the function and returning from it? I don't feel strongly about such changes, but its good to audit the overall code for reading and performance. Balbir Singh -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>