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-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
