From f78bb8ad482267b92c122f0e37a7dce69c880247 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Linus Torvalds Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 10:33:05 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] slab: fix calculate_slab_order() for SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT Instead of having a hard-to-read and confusing conditional in the caller, just make the slab order calculation handle this special case, since it's simple and obvious there. Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- mm/slab.c | 20 +++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c index f2e92dc1c9..6ad6bd5a0b 100644 --- a/mm/slab.c +++ b/mm/slab.c @@ -1647,6 +1647,14 @@ static inline size_t calculate_slab_order(struct kmem_cache *cachep, cachep->gfporder = gfporder; left_over = remainder; + /* + * A VFS-reclaimable slab tends to have most allocations + * as GFP_NOFS and we really don't want to have to be allocating + * higher-order pages when we are unable to shrink dcache. + */ + if (flags & SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT) + break; + /* * Large number of objects is good, but very large slabs are * currently bad for the gfp()s. @@ -1869,17 +1877,7 @@ kmem_cache_create (const char *name, size_t size, size_t align, size = ALIGN(size, align); - if ((flags & SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT) && size <= PAGE_SIZE) { - /* - * A VFS-reclaimable slab tends to have most allocations - * as GFP_NOFS and we really don't want to have to be allocating - * higher-order pages when we are unable to shrink dcache. - */ - cachep->gfporder = 0; - cache_estimate(cachep->gfporder, size, align, flags, - &left_over, &cachep->num); - } else - left_over = calculate_slab_order(cachep, size, align, flags); + left_over = calculate_slab_order(cachep, size, align, flags); if (!cachep->num) { printk("kmem_cache_create: couldn't create cache %s.\n", name); -- 2.39.5