check_for_memory() looks a bit confusing.  First of all, we have this:

if (N_MEMORY == N_NORMAL_MEMORY)
	return;

Checking the ENUM declaration, looks like N_MEMORY canot be equal to
N_NORMAL_MEMORY.

I could not find where N_MEMORY is set to N_NORMAL_MEMORY, or the other
way around either, so unless I am missing something, this condition will
never evaluate to true.  It makes sense to get rid of it.

Moving forward, the operations within the loop look a bit confusing as
well.

We set N_HIGH_MEMORY unconditionally, and then we set N_NORMAL_MEMORY in
case we have CONFIG_HIGHMEM (N_NORMAL_MEMORY != N_HIGH_MEMORY) and zone <=
ZONE_NORMAL.  (N_HIGH_MEMORY falls back to N_NORMAL_MEMORY on
!CONFIG_HIGHMEM systems, and that is why we can just go ahead and set
N_HIGH_MEMORY unconditionally)

Although this works, it is a bit subtle.

I think that this could be easier to follow:

First, we should only set N_HIGH_MEMORY in case we have CONFIG_HIGHMEM.
And then we should set N_NORMAL_MEMORY in case zone <= ZONE_NORMAL,
without further checking whether we have CONFIG_HIGHMEM or not.

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180828210158.4617-1-osalvador@techadventures.netSigned-off-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Michael Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Pavel Tatashin <pavel.tatashin@microsoft.com
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>