From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932892AbbI3UhJ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:37:09 -0400
Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:34909 "EHLO
	mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S932516AbbI3UhF (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:37:05 -0400
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:37:04 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for
 order-0 allocations
Message-Id: <20150930133704.b204cc34b5fac8ab8f0780c3@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150930151234.GP3068@techsingularity.net>
References: <1442832762-7247-1-git-send-email-mgorman@techsingularity.net>
	<20150921120317.GC3068@techsingularity.net>
	<20150929140507.82b5e02f300038e4bb5b2493@linux-foundation.org>
	<20150930084650.GM3068@techsingularity.net>
	<560BEF08.60704@suse.cz>
	<20150930151234.GP3068@techsingularity.net>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.4.1 (GTK+ 2.24.23; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:12:34 +0100 Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 04:17:44PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > >---
> > >  mm/page_alloc.c | 11 ++++++++---
> > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > >diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > >index 25731624d734..fedec98aafca 100644
> > >--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > >+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > >@@ -2332,7 +2332,7 @@ static bool __zone_watermark_ok(struct zone *z, unsigned int order,
> > >  {
> > >  	long min = mark;
> > >  	int o;
> > >-	const bool alloc_harder = (alloc_flags & ALLOC_HARDER);
> > >+	const int alloc_harder = (alloc_flags & ALLOC_HARDER);
> > 
> > How bout the !!(alloc_flags & ALLOC_HARDER) conversion to bool? Unless it
> > forces to make the compiler some extra work...
> > 
> 
> Some people frown upon that trick as being obscure when it's not unnecessary
> and a modern compiler is meant to get it right. The int is clear and
> obvious in this context so I just went with it.

Yes, the !!  does generate extra code.  It doesn't seem worthwhile
overhead for a tiny cosmetic thing.