[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1174434613.26166.182.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:50:13 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <hansendc@...ibm.com>
To: Adam Litke <agl@...ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Ken Chen <kenchen@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] [RFC] hugetlb: pagetable_operations API (V2)
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 13:05 -0700, Adam Litke wrote:
> For the common case (vma->pagetable_ops == NULL), we do almost the
> same thing as the current code: load and test. The third instruction
> is different in that we jump for the common case instead of jumping in
> the hugetlb case. I don't think this is a big deal though. If it is,
> would an unlikely() macro fix it?
I wouldn't worry about micro-optimizing it at that level. The CPU does
enough stuff under the covers that I wouldn't worry about it at all.
I wonder if the real differential impact (if any) is likely to come from
the pagetable_ops cacheline being hot or cold, since it is in a
different place in the structure than the flags. But, from a quick
glance I see a few vm_ops references preceding pagetable_ops references,
so the pagetable_ops cacheline might already be hot most of the time.
BTW, are there any other possible users for these things other than
large pages?
-- Dave
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists