[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20250826191320.d5aa551eb5abef316de41175@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2025 19:13:20 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Suren Baghdasaryan
<surenb@...gle.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Johannes Weiner
<hannes@...xchg.org>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: Harmonize should_compact_retry() type
On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 14:06:54 +0000 Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com> wrote:
> Currently order is signed in one version of the function and unsigned in
> the other. Tidy that up.
>
> In page_alloc.c, order is unsigned in the vast majority of cases. But,
> there is a cluster of exceptions in compaction-related code (probably
> stemming from the fact that compact_control.order is signed). So, prefer
> local consistency and make this one signed too.
>
grumble, pet peeve. Negative orders make no sense. Can we make
cc->order unsigned in order (heh) to make everything nice?
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -4182,7 +4182,7 @@ __alloc_pages_direct_compact(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> }
>
> static inline bool
> -should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, unsigned int order, int alloc_flags,
> +should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, int order, int alloc_flags,
> enum compact_result compact_result,
> enum compact_priority *compact_priority,
> int *compaction_retries)
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists