[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161013181637.GF20573@suse.de>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 19:16:37 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, peterz@...radead.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't touch single threaded PTEs which are on the right
node
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 11:04:02AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > do {
> > > oldpte = *pte;
> > > @@ -94,6 +100,13 @@ static unsigned long change_pte_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
> > > /* Avoid TLB flush if possible */
> > > if (pte_protnone(oldpte))
> > > continue;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Don't mess with PTEs if page is already on the node
> > > + * a single-threaded process is running on.
> > > + */
> > > + if (target_node == page_to_nid(page))
> > > + continue;
> > > }
> > >
> >
> > Check target_node != NUMA_NODE && target_node == page_to_nid(page) to
> > avoid unnecessary page->flag masking and shifts?
>
> I didn't do this last change because I expect a potentially mispredicted
> check is more expensive than some shifting/masking.
>
Ok, that's fair enough. For something that minor I expect it to be a
case of "you win some you lose some" depending on workload, CPU and
phase of the moon.
Thanks.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists