[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID:
<PH0PR11MB5192F328F5BC9252AE0EB70AEC3D2@PH0PR11MB5192.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 11:15:44 +0000
From: "Song, Xiongwei" <Xiongwei.Song@...driver.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"rientjes@...gle.com"
<rientjes@...gle.com>,
"cl@...ux.com" <cl@...ux.com>,
"penberg@...nel.org"
<penberg@...nel.org>,
"iamjoonsoo.kim@....com" <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"roman.gushchin@...ux.dev" <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
"42.hyeyoo@...il.com"
<42.hyeyoo@...il.com>
CC: "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"chengming.zhou@...ux.dev"
<chengming.zhou@...ux.dev>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 3/4] mm/slub: simplify get_partial_node()
>
> On 4/3/24 2:37 AM, Song, Xiongwei wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> It could be tempting to use >= instead of > to achieve the same effect but
> >> that would have unintended performance effects that would best be evaluated
> >> separately.
> >
> > I can run a test to measure Amean changes. But in terms of x86 assembly, there
> > should not be extra instructions with ">=".
> >
> > Did a simple test, for ">=" it uses "jle" instruction, while "jl" instruction is used for ">".
> > No more instructions involved. So there should not be performance effects on x86.
>
> Right, I didn't mean the code of the test, but how the difference of the
> comparison affects how many cpu partial slabs would be put on the cpu
> partial list here.
Got it. Will do measurement for it.
Thanks,
Xiongwei
Powered by blists - more mailing lists