[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK1f24mj_LFEU8mP=vGhJMWLAq1JANWqtipPwMLvYh6nrp65Dg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 12:13:25 +0800
From: Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ryan.roberts@....com, david@...hat.com,
21cnbao@...il.com, baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com, ziy@...dia.com,
fengwei.yin@...el.com, ying.huang@...el.com, libang.li@...group.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/mlock: implement folio_mlock_step() using folio_pte_batch()
Hi Matthew,
Thanks for taking time to review!
On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 11:36 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 11:31:17AM +0800, Lance Yang wrote:
> > {
> > - unsigned int count, i, nr = folio_nr_pages(folio);
> > - unsigned long pfn = folio_pfn(folio);
> > - pte_t ptent = ptep_get(pte);
>
> Please don't move type declarations later in the function. Just because
> you can doesn't mean you should.
Thanks for pointing this out, I'll adjust as you suggested.
>
> > - if (!folio_test_large(folio))
> > + if (likely(!folio_test_large(folio)))
> > return 1;
>
> How likely is this now? How likely will it be in two years time?
> Does this actually make any difference in either code generation or
> performance?
IMO, this hint could impact code generation and performance :)
But it seems that 'likely' is not necessary here. I'll remove it.
Thanks again for your time!
Lance
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists