[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130115153625.96265439.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:36:25 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: remove MIGRATE_ISOLATE check in hotpath
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 09:16:46 +0900
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> wrote:
> Now mm several functions test MIGRATE_ISOLATE and some of those
> are hotpath but MIGRATE_ISOLATE is used only if we enable
> CONFIG_MEMORY_ISOLATION(ie, CMA, memory-hotplug and memory-failure)
> which are not common config option. So let's not add unnecessary
> overhead and code when we don't enable CONFIG_MEMORY_ISOLATION.
ugh. Better than nothing, I guess.
There remain call sites which do open-coded
get_pageblock_migratetype(page) != MIGRATE_ISOLATE
(undo_isolate_page_range() is one). Wanna clean these up as well?
>
> ...
>
> @@ -683,7 +683,7 @@ static void free_one_page(struct zone *zone, struct page *page, int order,
> zone->pages_scanned = 0;
>
> __free_one_page(page, zone, order, migratetype);
> - if (unlikely(migratetype != MIGRATE_ISOLATE))
> + if (unlikely(!is_migrate_isolate(migratetype)))
> __mod_zone_freepage_state(zone, 1 << order, migratetype);
> spin_unlock(&zone->lock);
> }
The code both before and after this patch is assuming that the
migratetype in free_one_page is likely to be MIGRATE_ISOLATE. Seems
wrong. If CONFIG_MEMORY_ISOLATION=n this ends up doing
if(unlikely(true)) which is harmless-but-amusing.
--
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