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>

1 files changed, 9 insertions, 11 deletions

diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
index f2e92dc1c9c..6ad6bd5a0b3 100644
--- a/mm/slab.c
+++ b/mm/slab.c
@@ -1648,6 +1648,14 @@ static inline size_t calculate_slab_order(struct kmem_cache *cachep,
                 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);