On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 09:28:39AM +0800, zbestahu@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: Yue Hu <huyue2@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > We currently is taking time to check if the watermark is safe when > alloc_flags is setting with ALLOC_NO_WATERMARK in slowpath, the check > to alloc_flags is faster check which should be first check option > compared to the slow check of watermark, it could benefit to urgency > allocation request in slowpath, it also almost has no effect for > allocation with successful watermark check. > > Signed-off-by: Yue Hu <huyue2@xxxxxxxxxxx> NAK. Was this measured as being a benefit to anything? ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS is rare so it's in the slow path. Even though the watermark check is redundent when watermarks should be ignored, your patch adds a branch that is rarely true to the common case. The comment you move even gives a hint as to why it's located there! -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- 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>
