Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 10/11] mm, compaction: require only min watermarks for non-costly orders | From | Vlastimil Babka <> | Date | Tue, 16 Aug 2016 08:36:12 +0200 |
| |
On 08/16/2016 08:16 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:12:25AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c >> index 621e4211ce16..a5c0f914ec00 100644 >> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c >> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c >> @@ -2492,7 +2492,7 @@ int __isolate_free_page(struct page *page, unsigned int order) >> >> if (!is_migrate_isolate(mt)) { >> /* Obey watermarks as if the page was being allocated */ >> - watermark = low_wmark_pages(zone) + (1 << order); >> + watermark = min_wmark_pages(zone) + (1UL << order); > > This '1 << order' also needs some comment. Why can't we use > compact_gap() in this case?
This is just short-cutting the high-order watermark check to check only order-0, because we already know the high-order page exists. We can't use compact_gap() as that's too high to use for a single allocation watermark, since we can be already holding some free pages on the list. So it would defeat the gap purpose.
> Thanks. >
| |