[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1609211418480.20971@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 14:21:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: zijun_hu <zijun_hu@...o.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, zijun_hu@....com, tj@...nel.org,
mingo@...nel.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
mgorman@...hsingularity.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] mm/vmalloc.c: correct lazy_max_pages() return
value
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, zijun_hu wrote:
> From: zijun_hu <zijun_hu@....com>
>
> correct lazy_max_pages() return value if the number of online
> CPUs is power of 2
>
> Signed-off-by: zijun_hu <zijun_hu@....com>
> ---
> mm/vmalloc.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> index a125ae8..2804224 100644
> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -594,7 +594,9 @@ static unsigned long lazy_max_pages(void)
> {
> unsigned int log;
>
> - log = fls(num_online_cpus());
> + log = num_online_cpus();
> + if (log > 1)
> + log = (unsigned int)get_count_order(log);
>
> return log * (32UL * 1024 * 1024 / PAGE_SIZE);
> }
The implementation of lazy_max_pages() is somewhat arbitrarily defined,
the existing approximation has been around for eight years and
num_online_cpus() isn't intended to be rounded up to the next power of 2.
I'd be inclined to just leave it as it is.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists