[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <06110ce1-4638-2438-c17e-8f1dc3173522@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 18:24:16 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@...el.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] mm: Implement folio_remove_rmap_range()
On 30.08.23 17:42, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 30/08/2023 15:51, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:50:07AM +0100, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>> Like page_remove_rmap() but batch-removes the rmap for a range of pages
>>> belonging to a folio. This can provide a small speedup due to less
>>> manipuation of the various counters. But more crucially, if removing the
>>> rmap for all pages of a folio in a batch, there is no need to
>>> (spuriously) add it to the deferred split list, which saves significant
>>> cost when there is contention for the split queue lock.
>>>
>>> All contained pages are accounted using the order-0 folio (or base page)
>>> scheme.
>>>
>>> page_remove_rmap() is refactored so that it forwards to
>>> folio_remove_rmap_range() for !compound cases, and both functions now
>>> share a common epilogue function. The intention here is to avoid
>>> duplication of code.
>>
>> What would you think to doing it like this instead? This probably doesn't
>> even compile and it's definitely not sanity checked; just trying to get
>> across an idea of the shape of this code. I think this is more like
>> what DavidH was asking for (but he's on holiday this week so won't be
>> able to confirm).
>
> I think it was actually Yu Zhou who was arguing for something more like this?
I think so, not me.
... but the second variant is certainly shorter.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists