On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 10:05:55 +0800 Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > current_order is guaranteed to '>=' min_order while min_order always '>=' > order. So current_order must be '>=' order. > > Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > mm/page_alloc.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c > index 96b7c1a7d1f2..d37ec87515d0 100644 > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c > @@ -2072,8 +2072,7 @@ __rmqueue_fallback(struct zone *zone, int order, int start_migratetype, > * allocation falls back into a different pageblock than this > * one, it won't cause permanent fragmentation. > */ > - if (!can_steal && start_migratetype == MIGRATE_MOVABLE > - && current_order > order) > + if (!can_steal && start_migratetype == MIGRATE_MOVABLE) > goto find_smallest; Hi, if my analysis is correct, min_order can be initialized to the value of order before the loop begins. In that case, in the last loop iteration, current_order will be equal to min_order and also to order. The condition 'current_order > order' will evaluate to false, and the 'if' block should not be executed? Hugo.
