linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To: "Song, Xiongwei" <Xiongwei.Song@windriver.com>
Cc: Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@linux.dev>,
	 "sxwjean@me.com" <sxwjean@me.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	 Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
	 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	 Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
	 Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>,
	 "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	 "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] mm/slub: Simplify get_partial_node()
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:36:24 -0700 (PDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <934f65c6-4d97-6c4d-b123-4937ede24a99@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR11MB51924D5FA695AAEC0E41428EEC2A2@PH0PR11MB5192.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

On Wed, 13 Mar 2024, Song, Xiongwei wrote:

> > On 2024/3/12 22:05, sxwjean@me.com wrote:
> > > From: Xiongwei Song <xiongwei.song@windriver.com>
> > >
> > > Remove the check of !kmem_cache_has_cpu_partial() because it is always
> > > false, we've known this by calling kmem_cache_debug() before calling
> > > remove_partial(), so we can remove the check.
> > >
> > > Meanwhile, redo filling cpu partial and add comment to improve the
> > > readability.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Xiongwei Song <xiongwei.song@windriver.com>
> > > ---
> > > Changes in v2:
> > >  - Use "#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SLUB_CPU_PARTIAL)" to instead
> > >    "if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SLUB_CPU_PARTIAL))" to fix build error.
> > >    (Thanks Chengming Zhou)
> > >  - Add __maybe_unused for partial_slabs to prevent compiler warning.
> > >
> > > v1:
> > >  https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/20240311132720.37741-1-sxwjean@me.com/T/
> > > ---
> > >  mm/slub.c | 24 +++++++++++++-----------
> > >  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> > > index a3ab096c38c0..ab526960ee5b 100644
> > > --- a/mm/slub.c
> > > +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > > @@ -2588,7 +2588,7 @@ static struct slab *get_partial_node(struct kmem_cache *s,
> > >  {
> > >       struct slab *slab, *slab2, *partial = NULL;
> > >       unsigned long flags;
> > > -     unsigned int partial_slabs = 0;
> > > +     unsigned int __maybe_unused partial_slabs = 0;
> > >
> > >       /*
> > >        * Racy check. If we mistakenly see no partial slabs then we
> > > @@ -2620,19 +2620,21 @@ static struct slab *get_partial_node(struct kmem_cache *s,
> > >               if (!partial) {
> > >                       partial = slab;
> > >                       stat(s, ALLOC_FROM_PARTIAL);
> > > -             } else {
> > > -                     put_cpu_partial(s, slab, 0);
> > > -                     stat(s, CPU_PARTIAL_NODE);
> > > -                     partial_slabs++;
> > > +
> > > +                     /* Fill cpu partial if needed from next iteration, or break */
> > > +                     if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SLUB_CPU_PARTIAL))
> > > +                             continue;
> > > +                     else
> > > +                             break;
> > >               }
> > > -#ifdef CONFIG_SLUB_CPU_PARTIAL
> > > -             if (!kmem_cache_has_cpu_partial(s)
> > > -                     || partial_slabs > s->cpu_partial_slabs / 2)
> > > +
> > > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SLUB_CPU_PARTIAL)
> > 
> > Hmm, these two CONFIG_SLUB_CPU_PARTIAL look verbose to me :(
> > 
> > How about using just one, maybe like this?
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> > index 2ef88bbf56a3..a018c715b648 100644
> > --- a/mm/slub.c
> > +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > @@ -2620,19 +2620,16 @@ static struct slab *get_partial_node(struct kmem_cache *s,
> >                 if (!partial) {
> >                         partial = slab;
> >                         stat(s, ALLOC_FROM_PARTIAL);
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SLUB_CPU_PARTIAL
> >                 } else {
> 
> I don't like splitting  "if...else..." up with preprocessor directives personally. It's messy for me.
> 

I would agree, but the flow here actually seems like it's easier to follow 
if we are checking for CONFIG_SLUB_CPU_PARTIAL in multiple places :/


      reply	other threads:[~2024-03-13 23:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-03-12 14:05 sxwjean
2024-03-12 15:22 ` Chengming Zhou
2024-03-13  6:15   ` Song, Xiongwei
2024-03-13 23:36     ` David Rientjes [this message]

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=934f65c6-4d97-6c4d-b123-4937ede24a99@google.com \
    --to=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=42.hyeyoo@gmail.com \
    --cc=Xiongwei.Song@windriver.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=chengming.zhou@linux.dev \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=penberg@kernel.org \
    --cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
    --cc=sxwjean@me.com \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    /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