On Fri 09-11-18 11:10:00, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 11/9/18 10:56 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 09-11-18 18:41:53, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >> On 2018/11/09 17:43, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> @@ -4364,6 +4353,17 @@ __alloc_pages_nodemask(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order, int preferred_nid,
> >>> gfp_t alloc_mask; /* The gfp_t that was actually used for allocation */
> >>> struct alloc_context ac = { };
> >>>
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * In the slowpath, we sanity check order to avoid ever trying to
> >>
> >> Please keep the comment up to dated.
> >
> > Does this following look better?
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > index 9fc10a1029cf..bf9aecba4222 100644
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -4354,10 +4354,8 @@ __alloc_pages_nodemask(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order, int preferred_nid,
> > struct alloc_context ac = { };
> >
> > /*
> > - * In the slowpath, we sanity check order to avoid ever trying to
> > - * reclaim >= MAX_ORDER areas which will never succeed. Callers may
> > - * be using allocators in order of preference for an area that is
> > - * too large.
> > + * There are several places where we assume that the order value is sane
> > + * so bail out early if the request is out of bound.
> > */
> > if (order >= MAX_ORDER) {
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOWARN));
>
> Looks ok, but I'd add unlikely(), although it doesn't currently seem to
> make any difference.
>
> You can add Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
OK, I have added both. Thanks!
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
