Hi Pintu,
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 05:02:42PM +0530, Pintu Kumar wrote:
> It was observed that if order is passed as more than MAX_ORDER
> allocation in __alloc_pages_nodemask, it will unnecessarily go to
> slowpath and then return failure.
> Since we know that more than MAX_ORDER will anyways fail, we can
> avoid slowpath by returning failure in nodemask itself.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pintu Kumar <pintu.k@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/page_alloc.c | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 202ab58..6d38e75 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -1564,6 +1564,10 @@ __setup("fail_page_alloc=", setup_fail_page_alloc);
>
> static bool should_fail_alloc_page(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order)
> {
> + if (order >= MAX_ORDER) {
> + WARN_ON(!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOWARN));
> + return false;
> + }
I don't see how this solves what you describe (should return true?)
It would also not be a good place to put performance optimization,
because this function is only called as part of a debugging mechanism
that is usually disabled.
Lastly, order >= MAX_ORDER is not supported by the page allocator, and
we do not want to punish 99.999% of all legitimate page allocations in
the fast path in order to catch an unlikely situation like this.
Having the check only in the slowpath is a good thing.
--
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>