Hello:
Excuse me, I have to over time work, and will not go back home until this week end.
And I shall reply in this week end.
Thanks.
------------------------------------------------------------------发件人：Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx>发送时间：2016年7月13日(星期三) 15:53收件人：陈刚 <chengang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>抄 送：Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>; akpm <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; vbabka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>; mgorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; gi-oh.kim <gi-oh.kim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; iamjoonsoo.kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx>; hillf.zj <hillf.zj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-mm <linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx>; linux-kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@xxxxxxxxx>主 题：Re: [PATCH] mm: migrate: Use bool instead of int for the return value of PageMovableOn Wed 13-07-16 00:50:12, Chen Gang wrote:
>
>
> On 7/12/16 15:48, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 12-07-16 03:47:42, Chen Gang wrote:
> > [...]
> >> In our case, the 2 output size are same, but under x86_64, the insns are
> >> different. After uses bool, it uses push/pop instead of branch, for me,
> >> it should be a little better for catching.
> >
> > The code generated for bool version looks much worse. Look at the fast
> > path. Gcc tries to reuse the retq from the fast path in the bool case
> > and so it has to push rbp and rbx on the stack.
> >
> > That being said, gcc doesn't seem to generate a better code for bool so
> > I do not think this is really worth it.
> >
>
> The code below also merge 3 statements into 1 return statement, although
> for me, it is a little more readable, it will generate a little bad code.
> That is the reason why the output looks a little bad.
>
> In our case, for gcc 6.0, using bool instead of int for bool function
> will get the same output under x86_64.
If the output is same then there is no reason to change it.
> In our case, for gcc 4.8, using bool instead of int for bool function
> will get a little better output under x86_64.
I had a different impression and the fast path code had more
instructions. But anyway, is there really a strong reason to change
those return values in the first place? Isn't that just a pointless code
churn?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs