Re: [PATCH 2/6] lib/rhashtable: guarantee initial hashtable allocation

[Davidlohr Bueso]

On Wed, 30 May 2018, Herbert Xu wrote:

> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:59:27AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> That's exactly what you need to explain in the patch or the commit
> message.  In fact you still haven't explained it fully.  Why do we
> need a second attempt without the GFP_NOFAIL? How does it help the
> allocator?

It helps in that we have two fastpath attempts before going in to
__alloc_pages_slowpath() and looping in __GFP_NOFAIL. But yeah, I
see your point. We can just apply KISS and avoid the extra alloc.
That actually makes more sense to me now than ignoring min_size
based on simplicity.

Thanks for the review.

Thanks,
Davidlohr