[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1207081547140.18461@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 15:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, JoonSoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: don't invoke __alloc_pages_direct_compact when order
0
On Sun, 8 Jul 2012, JoonSoo Kim wrote:
> >> __alloc_pages_direct_compact has many arguments so invoking it is very costly.
> >> And in almost invoking case, order is 0, so return immediately.
> >>
> >
> > If "zero cost" is "very costly", then this might make sense.
> >
> > __alloc_pages_direct_compact() is inlined by gcc.
>
> In my kernel image, __alloc_pages_direct_compact() is not inlined by gcc.
Adding Andrew and Mel to the thread since this would require that we
revert 11e33f6a55ed ("page allocator: break up the allocator entry point
into fast and slow paths") which would obviously not be a clean revert
since there have been several changes to these functions over the past
three years.
I'm stunned (and skeptical) that __alloc_pages_direct_compact() is not
inlined by your gcc, especially since the kernel must be compiled with
optimization (either -O1 or -O2 which causes these functions to be
inlined). What version of gcc are you using and on what architecture?
Please do "make mm/page_alloc.s" and send it to me privately, I'll file
this and fix it up on gcc-bugs.
I'll definitely be following up on this.
--
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