Re: [PATCH] page_alloc.c: inline __rmqueue()

[Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>]

On 10/08/2017 10:44 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> __rmqueue() is called by rmqueue_bulk() and rmqueue() under zone->lock
> and that lock can be heavily contended with memory intensive applications.

What does "memory intensive" mean?  I'd probably just say: "The two
__rmqueue() call sites are in very hot page allocator paths."

> Since __rmqueue() is a small function, inline it can save us some time.
> With the will-it-scale/page_fault1/process benchmark, when using nr_cpu
> processes to stress buddy:

Please include a description of the test and a link to the source.

> On a 2 sockets Intel-Skylake machine:
>       base          %change       head
>      77342            +6.3%      82203        will-it-scale.per_process_ops

What's the unit here?  That seems ridiculously low for page_fault1.
It's usually in the millions.

> On a 4 sockets Intel-Skylake machine:
>       base          %change       head
>      75746            +4.6%      79248        will-it-scale.per_process_ops

It's probably worth noting the reason that this is _less_ beneficial on
a larger system.

I'd also just put this in text rather than wasting space in tables like
that.  It took me a few minutes to figure out what the table was trying
top say.  This is one of those places where LKP output is harmful.

Why not just say:

	This patch improved the benchmark by 6.3% on a 2-socket system
	and 4.6% on a 4-socket system.

> This patch adds inline to __rmqueue().

How much text bloat does this cost?

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>