[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150930151234.GP3068@techsingularity.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:12:34 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for
order-0 allocations
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 04:17:44PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >---
> > mm/page_alloc.c | 11 ++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> >index 25731624d734..fedec98aafca 100644
> >--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> >+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> >@@ -2332,7 +2332,7 @@ static bool __zone_watermark_ok(struct zone *z, unsigned int order,
> > {
> > long min = mark;
> > int o;
> >- const bool alloc_harder = (alloc_flags & ALLOC_HARDER);
> >+ const int alloc_harder = (alloc_flags & ALLOC_HARDER);
>
> How bout the !!(alloc_flags & ALLOC_HARDER) conversion to bool? Unless it
> forces to make the compiler some extra work...
>
Some people frown upon that trick as being obscure when it's not unnecessary
and a modern compiler is meant to get it right. The int is clear and
obvious in this context so I just went with it.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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