[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0902230913080.20371@melkki.cs.Helsinki.FI>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:14:03 +0200 (EET)
From: Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
cc: Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
Zhang Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/20] Simplify the check on whether cpusets are a factor
or not
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009, Mel Gorman wrote:
> The check whether cpuset contraints need to be checked or not is complex
> and often repeated. This patch makes the check in advance to the comparison
> is simplier to compute.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
You can do that in a cleaner way by defining ALLOC_CPUSET to be zero when
CONFIG_CPUSETS is disabled. Something like following untested patch:
Signed-off-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
---
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 5675b30..18b687d 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -1135,7 +1135,12 @@ failed:
#define ALLOC_WMARK_HIGH 0x08 /* use pages_high watermark */
#define ALLOC_HARDER 0x10 /* try to alloc harder */
#define ALLOC_HIGH 0x20 /* __GFP_HIGH set */
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_CPUSETS
#define ALLOC_CPUSET 0x40 /* check for correct cpuset */
+#else
+#define ALLOC_CPUSET 0x00
+#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_FAIL_PAGE_ALLOC
--
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