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 <torvalds@osdl.org>
diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
index f2e92dc..6ad6bd5 100644
--- a/mm/slab.c
+++ b/mm/slab.c
@@ -1648,6 +1648,14 @@
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 @@
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);