Re: [PATCH 3/4] mm/slub: simplify get_partial_node()

[Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>]

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.

> Thanks,
> Xiongwei
> 
>> 
>> >
>> > +             put_cpu_partial(s, slab, 0);
>> > +             stat(s, CPU_PARTIAL_NODE);
>> > +             partial_slabs++;
>> > +
>> > +             if (partial_slabs > slub_get_cpu_partial(s) / 2)
>> > +                     break;
>> >       }
>> >       spin_unlock_irqrestore(&n->list_lock, flags);
>> >       return partial;
>