On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 01:57:48PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 02-09-19 03:23:40, William Kucharski wrote:
> > Add an 'order' argument to __page_cache_alloc() and
> > do_read_cache_page(). Ensure the allocated pages are compound pages.
>
> Why do we need to touch all the existing callers and change them to use
> order 0 when none is actually converted to a different order? This just
> seem to add a lot of code churn without a good reason. If anything I
> would simply add __page_cache_alloc_order and make __page_cache_alloc
> call it with order 0 argument.
Patch 2/2 uses a non-zero order. I agree it's a lot of churn without
good reason; that's why I tried to add GFP_ORDER flags a few months ago.
Unfortunately, you didn't like that approach either.
> Also is it so much to ask callers to provide __GFP_COMP explicitly?
Yes, it's an unreasonable burden on the callers. Those that pass 0 will
have the test optimised away by the compiler (for the non-NUMA case).
For the NUMA case, passing zero is going to be only a couple of extra
instructions to not set the GFP_COMP flag.
> > #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> > -extern struct page *__page_cache_alloc(gfp_t gfp);
> > +extern struct page *__page_cache_alloc(gfp_t gfp, unsigned int order);
> > #else
> > -static inline struct page *__page_cache_alloc(gfp_t gfp)
> > +static inline struct page *__page_cache_alloc(gfp_t gfp, unsigned int order)
> > {
> > - return alloc_pages(gfp, 0);
> > + if (order > 0)
> > + gfp |= __GFP_COMP;
> > + return alloc_pages(gfp, order);
> > }
> > #endif
