[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120511.005740.210437168371869566.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 00:57:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: mgorman@...e.de
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
neilb@...e.de, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, michaelc@...wisc.edu,
emunson@...bm.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/17] netvm: Allow skb allocation to use PFMEMALLOC
reserves
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 14:45:03 +0100
> +/* Returns true if the gfp_mask allows use of ALLOC_NO_WATERMARK */
> +bool gfp_pfmemalloc_allowed(gfp_t gfp_mask);
I know this gets added in an earlier patch, but it seems slightly
overkill to have a function call just for a simply bit test.
> +extern atomic_t memalloc_socks;
> +static inline int sk_memalloc_socks(void)
> +{
> + return atomic_read(&memalloc_socks);
> +}
Please change this to be a static branch.
> + skb = __alloc_skb(length + NET_SKB_PAD, gfp_mask,
> + SKB_ALLOC_RX, NUMA_NO_NODE);
Please fix the argument indentation.
> + data = kmalloc_reserve(size + SKB_DATA_ALIGN(sizeof(struct skb_shared_info)),
> + gfp_mask, NUMA_NO_NODE, NULL);
Likewise.
> - struct sk_buff *n = alloc_skb(newheadroom + skb->len + newtailroom,
> - gfp_mask);
> + struct sk_buff *n = __alloc_skb(newheadroom + skb->len + newtailroom,
> + gfp_mask, skb_alloc_rx_flag(skb),
> + NUMA_NO_NODE);
Likewise.
> - nskb = alloc_skb(hsize + doffset + headroom,
> - GFP_ATOMIC);
> + nskb = __alloc_skb(hsize + doffset + headroom,
> + GFP_ATOMIC, skb_alloc_rx_flag(skb),
> + NUMA_NO_NODE);
Likewise.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists