[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <988ce376-bdc4-0989-5133-612bfa3f7c45@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 10:32:32 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Kemi Wang <kemi.wang@...el.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3 update] mm/free_pcppages_bulk: prefetch buddy while
not holding lock
On 03/09/2018 12:24 AM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> + /*
> + * We are going to put the page back to the global
> + * pool, prefetch its buddy to speed up later access
> + * under zone->lock. It is believed the overhead of
> + * an additional test and calculating buddy_pfn here
> + * can be offset by reduced memory latency later. To
> + * avoid excessive prefetching due to large count, only
> + * prefetch buddy for the last pcp->batch nr of pages.
> + */
> + if (count > pcp->batch)
> + continue;
> + pfn = page_to_pfn(page);
> + buddy_pfn = __find_buddy_pfn(pfn, 0);
> + buddy = page + (buddy_pfn - pfn);
> + prefetch(buddy);
FWIW, I think this needs to go into a helper function. Is that possible?
There's too much logic happening here. Also, 'count' going from
batch_size->0 is totally non-obvious from the patch context. It makes
this hunk look totally wrong by itself.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists