[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <482130D6.8020306@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 12:32:22 +0800
From: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: clameter@....com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc.c: fix a typo
Li Zefan wrote:
>>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>>> index bdd5c43..d0ba10d 100644
>>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>>> @@ -303,7 +303,7 @@ static void destroy_compound_page(struct page *page, unsigned long order)
>>> for (i = 1; i < nr_pages; i++) {
>>> struct page *p = page + i;
>>>
>>> - if (unlikely(!PageTail(p) |
>>> + if (unlikely(!PageTail(p) ||
>>> (p->first_page != page)))
>>> bad_page(page);
>>> __ClearPageTail(p);
>> I have a vague memory that the "|" was deliberate. Most of the time,
>> "!PageTail" will be false so most of the time we won't take the first
>
> !PageTail will be true if nothing bad happened, corrected me if I'm wrong:
>
Silly, I was wrong...
Christoph Lameter wrote:
> I think the | there was some developers attempt to avoid gcc generating
> too many branches. I am fine either way.
>
Yes, I found out it's 224abf92b2f439a9030f21d2926ec8047d1ffcdb :
[PATCH] mm: bad_page optimisation
Nick Piggin [Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:11:11 +0000 (00:11 -0800)]
Cut down size slightly by not passing bad_page the function name (it should be
able to be determined by dump_stack()). And cut down the number of printks in
bad_page.
Also, cut down some branching in the destroy_compound_page path.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists