From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1754051AbZBWJNm@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754051AbZBWJNm (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 23 Feb 2009 04:13:42 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752011AbZBWJN1
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Mon, 23 Feb 2009 04:13:27 -0500
Received: from courier.cs.helsinki.fi ([128.214.9.1]:46973 "EHLO
	mail.cs.helsinki.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751892AbZBWJN0 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 23 Feb 2009 04:13:26 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/20] Simplify the check on whether cpusets are a
	factor or not
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
       Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
       Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
       KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
       Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
       Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@intel.com>,
       Zhang Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <1235380072.4645.0.camel@laptop>
References: <1235344649-18265-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie>
	 <1235344649-18265-8-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0902230913080.20371@melkki.cs.Helsinki.FI>
	 <1235380072.4645.0.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:13:23 +0200
Message-Id: <1235380403.6216.16.camel@penberg-laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 10:07 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 09:14 +0200, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Feb 2009, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > The check whether cpuset contraints need to be checked or not is complex
> > > and often repeated.  This patch makes the check in advance to the comparison
> > > is simplier to compute.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
> > 
> > You can do that in a cleaner way by defining ALLOC_CPUSET to be zero when 
> > CONFIG_CPUSETS is disabled. Something like following untested patch:
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
> > ---
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > index 5675b30..18b687d 100644
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -1135,7 +1135,12 @@ failed:
> >  #define ALLOC_WMARK_HIGH	0x08 /* use pages_high watermark */
> >  #define ALLOC_HARDER		0x10 /* try to alloc harder */
> >  #define ALLOC_HIGH		0x20 /* __GFP_HIGH set */
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CPUSETS
> >  #define ALLOC_CPUSET		0x40 /* check for correct cpuset */
> > +#else
> > +#define ALLOC_CPUSET		0x00
> > +#endif
> >  
> 
> Mel's patch however even avoids the code when cpusets are configured but
> not actively used (the most common case for distro kernels).

Right. Combining both patches is probably the best solution then as we
get rid of the #ifdef in get_page_from_freelist().

			Pekka