Re: [PATCH]: Cleanup of __alloc_pages

Rohit Seth
2005-11-08T02:16:30Z

On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 17:53 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> "Rohit, Seth" <rohit.seth@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > [PATCH]: Clean up of __alloc_pages. Couple of difference from original behavior:
> > 1- remove the initial reclaim logic
> > 2- GFP_HIGH pages are allowed to go little below watermark sooner.
> > 3- Search for free pages unconditionally after direct reclaim.
>
> Would it be possible to break these into three separate patches? The
> cleanup part should be #1.
>

Doing the above three things as part of this clean up patch makes the
code look extra clean... Is there any specific issue coming out of 2 & 3
above.

> > + if (!skip_cpuset_chk && (!cpuset_zone_allowed(z, gfp_mask)))
>
> It'd be nice to not have the `skip_cpuset_chk' flag there. a) it gives
> Linus conniptions and b) it's a little extra overhead for !CONFIG_CPUSETS
> kernels.
>

I think it will be easier to do this change as a follow on patch as that
will change the header file, function definition and such. Can we defer
this to separate follow on patch.

> > - zone_statistics(zonelist, z);
> > + zone_statistics(zonelist, page_zone(page));
>
> Evaluating page_zone() is not completely trivial. Can we avoid the above?

Okay. Last time Nick also mentioned this but agreed to keep it here. I
will uplevel so that I don't go through the page_zone.

-rohit