Re: [PATCH 12/25] Remove a branch by assuming __GFP_HIGH == ALLOC_HIGH

[Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:46:22AM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 23:19 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > Allocations that specify __GFP_HIGH get the ALLOC_HIGH flag. If these
> > flags are equal to each other, we can eliminate a branch.
> > 
> > [akpm@linux-foundation.org: Suggested the hack]
> 
> Yikes!
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
> > ---
> >  mm/page_alloc.c |    4 ++--
> >  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > index 51e1ded..b13fc29 100644
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -1639,8 +1639,8 @@ gfp_to_alloc_flags(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> >  	 * policy or is asking for __GFP_HIGH memory.  GFP_ATOMIC requests will
> >  	 * set both ALLOC_HARDER (!wait) and ALLOC_HIGH (__GFP_HIGH).
> >  	 */
> > -	if (gfp_mask & __GFP_HIGH)
> > -		alloc_flags |= ALLOC_HIGH;
> > +	VM_BUG_ON(__GFP_HIGH != ALLOC_HIGH);
> > +	alloc_flags |= (gfp_mask & __GFP_HIGH);
> 
> Shouldn't you then also change ALLOC_HIGH to use __GFP_HIGH or at least
> add a comment somewhere?
> 

That might break in weird ways if __GFP_HIGH changes in value then. I
can add a comment though

/*
 * __GFP_HIGH is assumed to be the same as ALLOC_HIGH to save a branch.
 * Check for DEBUG_VM that the assumption is still correct. It cannot be
 * checked at compile-time due to casting
 */

?

> >  
> >  	if (!wait) {
> >  		alloc_flags |= ALLOC_HARDER;
> 

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>