linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 4/4] mm: microoptimize zonelist operations

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150107105749.GC16553@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:	Wed, 7 Jan 2015 11:57:49 +0100
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei@...fujitsu.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 4/4] mm: microoptimize zonelist operations

On Wed 07-01-15 10:15:39, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 01/06/2015 04:09 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 05-01-15 18:17:43, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> The function next_zones_zonelist() returns zoneref pointer, as well as zone
> >> pointer via extra parameter. Since the latter can be trivially obtained by
> >> dereferencing the former, the overhead of the extra parameter is unjustified.
> >> 
> >> This patch thus removes the zone parameter from next_zones_zonelist(). Both
> >> callers happen to be in the same header file, so it's simple to add the
> >> zoneref dereference inline. We save some bytes of code size.
> > 
> > Dunno. It makes first_zones_zonelist and next_zones_zonelist look
> > different which might be a bit confusing. It's not a big deal but
> > I am not sure it is worth it.
> 
> Yeah I thought that nobody uses them directly anyway thanks to
> for_each_zone_zonelist* so it's not a big deal.

OK, I have checked why we need the whole struct zoneref when it
only caches zone_idx. dd1a239f6f2d (mm: have zonelist contains
structs with both a zone pointer and zone_idx) claims this will
reduce cache contention by reducing pointer chasing because we
do not have to dereference pgdat so often in hot paths. Fair
enough but I do not see any numbers in the changelog nor in the
original discussion (https://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/20/547 resp.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/28/170). Maybe Mel remembers what was the
benchmark which has shown the difference so that we can check whether
this is still relevant and caching the index is still worth it.

-- 
Michal Hocko
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/