Re: [PATCH 6/6] mm: page_alloc: Reduce cost of the fair zone allocation policy

[Vlastimil Babka]

On 07/09/2014 10:13 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -1604,6 +1604,9 @@ again:
>  	}
>  
>  	__mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_ALLOC_BATCH, -(1 << order));

This can underflow zero, right?

> +	if (zone_page_state(zone, NR_ALLOC_BATCH) == 0 &&

AFAICS, zone_page_state will correct negative values to zero only for
CONFIG_SMP. Won't this check be broken on !CONFIG_SMP?

I just stumbled upon this when trying to optimize the function. I didn't check
how rest of the design copes with negative NR_ALLOC_BATCH values.

> +	    !zone_is_fair_depleted(zone))
> +		zone_set_flag(zone, ZONE_FAIR_DEPLETED);
>  
>  	__count_zone_vm_events(PGALLOC, zone, 1 << order);
>  	zone_statistics(preferred_zone, zone, gfp_flags);
> @@ -1915,6 +1918,18 @@ static bool zone_allows_reclaim(struct zone *local_zone, struct zone *zone)
>  
>  #endif	/* CONFIG_NUMA */
>  

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/