From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: chengkaitao <pilgrimtao@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
smcdef@gmail.com, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: delete duplicate order checking, when stealing whole pageblock
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 17:00:45 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210611170045.b79a238fa3fc4bc9e4cd1140@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210611063834.11871-1-chengkaitao@didiglobal.com>
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 14:38:34 +0800 chengkaitao <pilgrimtao@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: chengkaitao <pilgrimtao@gmail.com>
>
> 1. Already has (order >= pageblock_order / 2) here, we don't neet
> (order >= pageblock_order)
> 2. set function can_steal_fallback to inline
>
> ...
>
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -2619,18 +2619,8 @@ static void change_pageblock_range(struct page *pageblock_page,
> * is worse than movable allocations stealing from unmovable and reclaimable
> * pageblocks.
> */
> -static bool can_steal_fallback(unsigned int order, int start_mt)
> +static inline bool can_steal_fallback(unsigned int order, int start_mt)
> {
> - /*
> - * Leaving this order check is intended, although there is
> - * relaxed order check in next check. The reason is that
> - * we can actually steal whole pageblock if this condition met,
> - * but, below check doesn't guarantee it and that is just heuristic
> - * so could be changed anytime.
> - */
> - if (order >= pageblock_order)
> - return true;
> -
> if (order >= pageblock_order / 2 ||
> start_mt == MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE ||
> start_mt == MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE ||
Well, that redundant check was put there deliberately, as the comment
explains.
The reasoning is perhaps a little dubious, but it seems that the
compiler has optimized away the redundant check anyway (your patch
doesn't alter code size).
parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-12 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
[parent not found: <20210611063834.11871-1-chengkaitao@didiglobal.com>]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210611170045.b79a238fa3fc4bc9e4cd1140@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=pilgrimtao@gmail.com \
--cc=smcdef@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox