Hi, Minchan,
Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 09:35:37PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> In fact, during the test, I found the overhead of sort() is comparable
>> with the performance difference of adding likely()/unlikely() to the
>> "if" in the function.
>
> Huang,
>
> This discussion is started from your optimization code:
>
> if (nr_swapfiles > 1)
> sort();
>
> I don't have such fast machine so cannot test it. However, you added
> such optimization code in there so I guess it's *worth* to review so
> with spending my time, I pointed out what you are missing and
> suggested a idea to find a compromise.
Sorry for wasting your time and Thanks a lot for your review and
suggestion!
When I started talking this with you, I found there is some measurable
overhead of sort(). But later when I done more tests, I found the
measurable overhead is at the same level of likely()/unlikely() compiler
notation. So you help me to find that, Thanks again!
> Now you are saying sort is so fast so no worth to add more logics
> to avoid the overhead?
> Then, please just drop that if condition part and instead, sort
> it unconditionally.
Now, because we found the overhead of sort() is low, I suggest to put
minimal effort to avoid it. Like the original implementation,
if (nr_swapfiles > 1)
sort();
Or, we can make nr_swapfiles more correct as Tim suggested (tracking
the number of the swap devices during swap on/off).
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
