On Mon, 30 May 2011 14:38:31 +0200 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 56de7263 (mm: compaction: direct compact when a high-order allocation > fails) introduced a check for cc->order == -1 in compact_finished. We > should continue compacting in that case because the request came from > userspace and there is no particular order to compact for. > > The check is, however, done after zone_watermark_ok which uses order as > a right hand argument for shifts. Not only watermark check is pointless > if we can break out without it but it also uses 1 << -1 which is not > well defined (at least from C standard). Let's move the -1 check above > zone_watermark_ok. > > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> > Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hioryu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>