On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 08:36:12AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> 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.
Oops. I missed that. Thanks for clarifying it.
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>