[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20221201144103.8f79e5272e75957a34de4c4e@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2022 14:41:03 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: wonder_rock@....com
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/page_alloc: update comments in __free_pages_ok()
On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 21:50:45 +0800 wonder_rock@....com wrote:
> Add a comment to explain why we call get_pfnblock_migratetype() twice
> in __free_pages_ok().
>
> ...
>
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -1702,6 +1702,11 @@ static void __free_pages_ok(struct page *page, unsigned int order,
> if (!free_pages_prepare(page, order, true, fpi_flags))
> return;
>
> + /*
> + * Calling get_pfnblock_migratetype() without spin_lock_irqsave() here
> + * is used to avoid calling get_pfnblock_migratetype() under the lock.
> + * This will reduce the lock holding time.
> + */
> migratetype = get_pfnblock_migratetype(page, pfn);
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
I guess that if the comment helped one reader, it will help others.
But this is a pretty common trick in MM and most readers will recognize
it.
That being said, get_pfnblock_migratetype() is pretty lightweight.
Particularly when compared with __free_one_page(). I wonder if the
optimization does much good.
If the second call to get_pfnblock_migratetype() is almost never performed
then we just added a bunch of testing and branching inside the lock
which actually made things worse!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists