The __alloc_pages_slowpath() has gotten rather complex and gcc
is no longer able to follow the gotos and prove that the
alloc_flags variable is initialized at the time it is used:

mm/page_alloc.c: In function '__alloc_pages_slowpath':
mm/page_alloc.c:3565:15: error: 'alloc_flags' may be used uninitialized in this 
function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]

To be honest, I can't figure that out either, maybe it is or
maybe not, but moving the existing initialization up a little
higher looks safe and makes it obvious to both me and gcc that
the initialization comes before the first use.

Fixes: 74eaa4a97e8e ("mm: consolidate GFP_NOFAIL checks in the allocator 
slowpath")
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
---
 mm/page_alloc.c | 15 +++++++--------
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index cf641932c015..d9fa4564524f 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -3591,6 +3591,13 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int 
order,
                                (__GFP_ATOMIC|__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM)))
                gfp_mask &= ~__GFP_ATOMIC;
 
+       /*
+        * The fast path uses conservative alloc_flags to succeed only until
+        * kswapd needs to be woken up, and to avoid the cost of setting up
+        * alloc_flags precisely. So we do that now.
+        */
+       alloc_flags = gfp_to_alloc_flags(gfp_mask);
+
 retry_cpuset:
        compaction_retries = 0;
        no_progress_loops = 0;
@@ -3607,14 +3614,6 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int 
order,
        if (!ac->preferred_zoneref->zone)
                goto nopage;
 
-
-       /*
-        * The fast path uses conservative alloc_flags to succeed only until
-        * kswapd needs to be woken up, and to avoid the cost of setting up
-        * alloc_flags precisely. So we do that now.
-        */
-       alloc_flags = gfp_to_alloc_flags(gfp_mask);
-
        if (gfp_mask & __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM)
                wake_all_kswapds(order, ac);
 
-- 
2.9.0

Reply via email to