[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170721144318.GD5944@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 16:43:18 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@...il.com>,
zhaoyang.huang@...eadtrum.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, zijun_hu <zijun_hu@....com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, zijun_hu@...o.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mm/vmalloc: add a node corresponding to
cached_hole_size
On Fri 21-07-17 04:39:48, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 06:01:41PM +0800, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> > we just record the cached_hole_size now, which will be used when
> > the criteria meet both of 'free_vmap_cache == NULL' and 'size <
> > cached_hole_size'. However, under above scenario, the search will
> > start from the rb_root and then find the node which just in front
> > of the cached hole.
> >
> > free_vmap_cache miss:
> > vmap_area_root
> > / \
> > _next U
> > / (T1)
> > cached_hole_node
> > /
> > ... (T2)
> > /
> > first
> >
> > vmap_area_list->first->......->cached_hole_node->cached_hole_node.list.next
> > |-------(T3)-------| | <<< cached_hole_size >>> |
> >
> > vmap_area_list->......->cached_hole_node->cached_hole_node.list.next
> > | <<< cached_hole_size >>> |
> >
> > The time cost to search the node now is T = T1 + T2 + T3.
> > The commit add a cached_hole_node here to record the one just in front of
> > the cached_hole_size, which can help to avoid walking the rb tree and
> > the list and make the T = 0;
>
> Yes, but does this matter in practice? Are there any workloads where
> this makes a difference? If so, how much?
I have already asked this and didn't get any response. There were other
versions of a similar patch without a good clarification...
Zhaoyang Huang, please try to formulate the problem you are fixing and
why. While it is clear that you add _an_ optimization it is not really
clear why we need it and whether it might adversely affect existing
workloads. I would rather not touch this code unless there is a strong
justification for it.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists