[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1009051602130.5003@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2010 16:03:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
cluster-devel@...hat.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch v2 1/5] mm: add nofail variants of kmalloc kcalloc and
kzalloc
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
> I'm actually a bit confused about this too.
> I thought David said he was removing a branch on the *slow* path - which make
> sense as you wouldn't even test NOFAIL until you had a failure.
> Why are branches on the slow-path an issue??
They aren't necessarily an issue in the performance sense, this is a
cleanup series since all converted callers to using these new functions
(and the eventual removal of __GFP_NOFAIL entirely) are using the bit
unnecessarily since they all have orders that implicitly loop in the page
allocator forever already, with or without the flag.
--
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