Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1529035
| From | Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator |
| Date | 2016-11-24 08:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sGWDL-7WB-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <sFZaF-333-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <sGHOr-6Ev-59@gated-at.bofh.it> <sGIUa-7ig-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 11/23/2016 05:33 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>>> +
>>> +static inline unsigned int pindex_to_order(unsigned int pindex)
>>> +{
>>> + return pindex < MIGRATE_PCPTYPES ? 0 : pindex - MIGRATE_PCPTYPES + 1;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static inline unsigned int order_to_pindex(int migratetype, unsigned int order)
>>> +{
>>> + return (order == 0) ? migratetype : MIGRATE_PCPTYPES - 1 + order;
>>
>> Here I think that "MIGRATE_PCPTYPES + order - 1" would be easier to
>> understand as the array is for all migratetypes, but the order is shifted?
>>
>
> As in migratetypes * costly_order ? That would be excessively large.
No, I just meant that instead of "MIGRATE_PCPTYPES - 1 + order" it could
be "MIGRATE_PCPTYPES + order - 1" as we are subtracting from order, not
migratetypes. Just made me confused a bit when seeing the code for the
first time.
>>> @@ -1083,10 +1083,12 @@ static bool bulkfree_pcp_prepare(struct page *page)
>>> * pinned" detection logic.
>>> */
>>> static void free_pcppages_bulk(struct zone *zone, int count,
>>> - struct per_cpu_pages *pcp)
>>> + struct per_cpu_pages *pcp,
>>> + int migratetype)
>>> {
>>> - int migratetype = 0;
>>> - int batch_free = 0;
>>> + unsigned int pindex = 0;
>>
>> Should pindex be initialized to migratetype to match the list below?
>>
>
> Functionally it doesn't matter. It affects which list is tried first if
> the preferred list is empty. Arguably it would make more sense to init
> it to NR_PCP_LISTS - 1 so all order-0 lists are always drained before the
> high-order pages but there is not much justification for that.
OK
> I'll take your suggestion until there is data supporting that high-order
> caches should be preserved.
>
> Thanks.
>
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[RFC PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> - 2016-11-21 17:00 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> - 2016-11-23 16:40 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> - 2016-11-23 17:50 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> - 2016-11-24 08:30 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> - 2016-11-24 08:50 +0100
csiph-web