On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 04:24:19PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 16:10:04 +0200 (EET) "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Something like this? > > > > >From 5fd481c1c521112e9cea407f5a2644c9f93d0e14 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 15:59:23 +0200 > > Subject: [PATCH] mm: more checks on free_pages_prepare() for tail pages > > > > Apart form being dead, destroy_compound_page() did some potentially > > useful checks. Let's re-introduce them in free_pages_prepare(), where > > they can be acctually triggered. > > > > compound_order() assert is already in free_pages_prepare(). We have few > > checks for tail pages left. > > > > I'm thinking we avoid the overhead unless CONFIG_DEBUG_VM? That's why there's "if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_VM))". Is it wrong in some way? I didn't check, but I assume compiler is smart enough to get rid of free_tail_pages_check() if CONFIG_DEBUG_VM is not defined. No? -- Kirill A. Shutemov -- 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>