Re: [patch v2 1/5] mm: add nofail variants of kmalloc kcalloc andkzalloc

[David Rientjes]

On Fri, 3 Sep 2010, Neil Brown wrote:

> I'm actually a bit confused about this too.
> I thought David said he was removing a branch on the *slow* path - which make
> sense as you wouldn't even test NOFAIL until you had a failure.
> Why are branches on the slow-path an issue??

They aren't necessarily an issue in the performance sense, this is a 
cleanup series since all converted callers to using these new functions 
(and the eventual removal of __GFP_NOFAIL entirely) are using the bit 
unnecessarily since they all have orders that implicitly loop in the page 
allocator forever already, with or without the flag.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/