On 08/16/2016 08:16 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:12:25AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c index 621e4211ce16..a5c0f914ec00 100644 --- a/mm/page_alloc.c +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c @@ -2492,7 +2492,7 @@ int __isolate_free_page(struct page *page, unsigned int order) if (!is_migrate_isolate(mt)) { /* Obey watermarks as if the page was being allocated */ - watermark = low_wmark_pages(zone) + (1 << order); + watermark = min_wmark_pages(zone) + (1UL << order);This '1 << order' also needs some comment. Why can't we use compact_gap() in this case?
This is just short-cutting the high-order watermark check to check only order-0, because we already know the high-order page exists. We can't use compact_gap() as that's too high to use for a single allocation watermark, since we can be already holding some free pages on the list. So it would defeat the gap purpose.
Thanks.
-- 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>