[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121008151656.GM29125@suse.de>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 16:16:56 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: Mike Yoknis <mike.yoknis@...com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, mmarek@...e.cz, tglx@...utronix.de,
hpa@...or.com, arnd@...db.de, sam@...nborg.org, minchan@...nel.org,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, mhocko@...e.cz,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memmap_init_zone() performance improvement
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 08:56:14AM -0600, Mike Yoknis wrote:
> memmap_init_zone() loops through every Page Frame Number (pfn),
> including pfn values that are within the gaps between existing
> memory sections. The unneeded looping will become a boot
> performance issue when machines configure larger memory ranges
> that will contain larger and more numerous gaps.
>
> The code will skip across invalid sections to reduce the
> number of loops executed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Yoknis <mike.yoknis@...com>
This only helps SPARSEMEM and changes more headers than should be
necessary. It would have been easier to do something simple like
if (!early_pfn_valid(pfn)) {
pfn = ALIGN(pfn + MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES, MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES) - 1;
continue;
}
because that would obey the expectation that pages within a
MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES-aligned range are all valid or all invalid (ARM is the
exception that breaks this rule). It would be less efficient on
SPARSEMEM than what you're trying to merge but I do not see the need for
the additional complexity unless you can show it makes a big difference
to boot times.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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